23650 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2010–0030; 

92210–1113–0000–C6] 

RIN 1018–AV22 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition and Proposed Rule To 

Remove the Morelet’s Crocodile From 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition and a 

proposed rule to remove the Morelet’s 

crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii) 

throughout its range from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife due to recovery. This action is 

based on a thorough review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, including new information that 

became available after we received the 

petition, which indicates that the 

species’ status had improved to the 

point that the Morelet’s crocodile is not 

likely to become threatened within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. If this 

proposed rule is finalized, the Morelet’s 

crocodile will remain protected under 

the provisions of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. We 

are seeking information, data, and 

comments from the public on this 

proposed rule. 

DATES: To ensure that we are able to 

consider your comments on this 

proposed rule, they must be received or 

postmarked on or before June 27, 2011. 

We must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below by June 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for docket 

number FWS–R9–ES–2010–0030 and 

then follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– 

ES–2010–0030; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept comments by email or fax. We will post all comments 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, 

Arlington, VA 22203, U.S.A.; telephone 

703–358–2171; facsimile 703–358–1735. 

Individuals who are hearing-impaired or 

speech-impaired may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service at 800–877– 

8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 

7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

Any final action resulting from this 

proposed rule will be based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and be as accurate and effective as 

possible. Therefore, we request 

comments or information from other 

concerned government agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. The comments that will 

be most useful and likely to influence 

our decisions are those supported by 

data or peer-reviewed studies and those 

that include citations to, and analyses 

of, applicable laws and regulations. 

Please make your comments as specific 

as possible and explain the basis for 

them. In addition, please include 

sufficient information with your 

comments to allow us to authenticate 

any scientific or commercial data you 

reference or provide. In particular, we 

seek comments concerning the 

following: 

(1) New biological, trade, or other 

relevant information and data 

concerning any threat (or lack thereof) 

to the Morelet’s crocodile. 

(2) New information and data on 

whether or not climate change is a 

threat to the Morelet’s crocodile, what 

regional climate change models are 

available, and whether they are reliable 

and credible to use as step-down models 

for assessing the effect of climate change 

on the species and its habitat. 

(3) The location of any additional 

populations of Morelet’s crocodile. 

(4) New information and data 

concerning the range, distribution, and 

population size and population trends 

of the Morelet’s crocodile. 

(5) New information and data on the 

current or planned activities within the 

geographic range of the Morelet’s 

crocodile that may affect or benefit the 

species. 

(6) New information and data 

concerning captive breeding operations 

in Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala. 

(7) New information and data on the 

Morelet’s crocodile in Guatemala that 

would enhance our analysis of whether 

this population qualifies as a Distinct 

Population Segment under the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and whether this 

population warrants continued 

protection under the Act. 

(8) Information and data concerning 

the status and results of monitoring 

actions for the Morelet’s crocodile, 

including those implemented under the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES), the Belize-GuatemalaMexico Tri-national Strategy for the 

Conservation and Sustainable Use of 

Morelet’s Crocodile, and the Belizean 

monitoring plan that are discussed 

under the Post-Delisting Monitoring 

section below. 

(9) Information pertaining to Belize’s 

efforts to fully enact national legislation 

and/or their efforts to ensure Belize’s 

compliance with CITES. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) directs that a 

determination as to whether any species 

is an endangered or threatened species 

must be made ‘‘solely on the basis of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available.’’ 

Prior to issuing a final rule on this 

proposed action, we will take into 

consideration all comments and any 

additional information we receive. Such 

information may lead to a final rule that 

differs from this proposal. All comments 

and recommendations, including names 

and addresses, will become part of the 

administrative record. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not 

consider comments sent by e-mail or fax 

or to an address not listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. If you submit a 

comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. Please note that 

comments posted to this Web site are 

not immediately viewable. When you 

submit a comment, the system receives 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23651 

it immediately. However, the comment 

will not be publicly viewable until we 

post it, which might not occur until 

several days after submission. 

If you mail or hand-deliver a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

To ensure that the electronic docket for 

this rulemaking is complete and all 

comments we receive are publicly 

available, we will post all hardcopy 

submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

In addition, comments and materials 

we receive, as well as supporting 

documentation used in preparing this 

proposed rule, will be available for 

public inspection in two ways: 

(1) You can view them on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Enter 

Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R9–ES– 

2010–0030, which is the docket number 

for this rulemaking. 

(2) You can make an appointment, 

during normal business hours, to view 

the comments and materials in person at 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Endangered Species Program located in 

our Headquarters office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—might 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides 

for one or more public hearings on this 

proposed rule, if requested. We must 

receive requests for public hearings, in 

writing, at the address shown in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

by the date shown in the DATES section 

of this document. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings, as 

well as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 

Register at least 15 days before the first 

hearing. 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

the Service to make an initial finding as 

to whether a petition to list, delist, or 

reclassify a species has presented 

substantial information indicating that 

the requested action may be warranted. 

To the maximum extent practicable, the 

finding shall be made within 90 days 

following receipt of the petition and 

published promptly in the Federal 

Register. If the 90-day finding is 

positive—that is, the petition has 

presented substantial information 

indicating that the requested action may 

be warranted—section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act requires the Service to commence a 

status review of the species if one has 

not already been initiated under the 

Service’s internal candidate assessment 

process. In addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) 

of the Act requires the Service to make 

a finding within 12 months following 

receipt of the petition on whether the 

requested action is warranted, not 

warranted, or warranted but precluded 

by higher-priority listing actions. That 

finding is referred to as the ‘‘12-month 

finding.’’ 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Morelet’s crocodile was listed as 

endangered throughout its entire range 

under the predecessor of the Act via a 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). Import 

into, export from, or re-export from the 

United States, as well as other 

prohibitions, including movement in 

the course of a commercial activity and 

sale in interstate or foreign commerce, 

of endangered species and their parts 

and products, are prohibited under the 

Act unless otherwise authorized. 

Authorizations for endangered species 

can only be made for scientific purposes 

or to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species. On July 1, 1975, 

the Morelet’s crocodile was listed in 

Appendix I of CITES. These protections 

were put in place because the species 

had suffered substantial population 

declines throughout its range due to 

habitat destruction and overexploitation 

through the commercial crocodilian 

skin trade. CITES Appendix I includes 

species that are ‘‘threatened with 

extinction which are or may be affected 

by trade.’’ 

On May 26, 2005, the Service received 

a petition from the Government of 

Mexico’s Comisio ́n Nacional para el 

Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad 

(CONABIO 2005) to remove the 

Morelet’s crocodile from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 

50 CFR 17.11. 

Based on the information provided, 

the Service’s 90-day finding on the 

petition, which was published in the 

Federal Register on June 28, 2006 (71 

FR 36743), stated that the petition 

provided substantial information to 

indicate that the requested action may 

be warranted. In that finding, we 

announced that we had initiated a status 

review of the species as required under 

section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, and that 

we were seeking comments on the 

petition, as well as information on the 

status of the species, particularly in 

Belize and Guatemala. The Service also 

solicited comments or additional 

information from counterparts in 

Mexico, Belize and Guatemala. 

This proposed rule to delist the 

Morelet’s crocodile throughout its range 

also constitutes our 12-month finding 

that the petitioned action is warranted. 

Species Information 

Three species of crocodilians occur in 

Mexico and Central America. The 

Morelet’s crocodile and the American 

crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) co-occur 

in Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala 

(Schmidt 1924, pp. 79 and 85; Stuart 

1948, p. 45). While their ranges overlap, 

the American crocodile has a much 

larger range than the Morelet’s 

crocodile, and is found in the United 

States in the State of Florida, as well as 

in the Caribbean, on Pacific and Atlantic 

coasts of Central America and northern 

South America in Venezuela, Colombia, 

Ecuador, and northern Peru. A third 

species, the common or spectacled 

caiman (Caiman crocodilus) occurs in 

Mexico and Guatemala, but is absent 

from Belize. The distribution of the 

common caiman also extends into 

northern South America (Ross 1998, pp. 

14–17; Thorbjarnarson 1992, pp. 82–85). 

The Morelet’s crocodile was named after 

a French naturalist, P.M.A. Morelet 

(1809–1892), who discovered this 

species in Mexico in 1850 (Britton 2008, 

p. 1). The type locality of the species 

was later restricted to ‘‘Guatemala, El 

Peten, Laguna de Peten’’ when the 

species was scientifically described. In 

Mexico, the Morelet’s crocodile is 

known as ‘‘lagarto’’ or ‘‘swamp 

crocodile’’ (Rodriguez-Quivedo et al, 

2008). 

The Morelet’s crocodile is a 

‘‘relatively small species’’ that usually 

attains a maximum length of 

approximately 9.8–11.5 ft (3–3.5 m 

(Sa ́nchez (2005, p. 4); Britton (2008, p. 

1)), with most wild adults ranging in 

length 6.6–8.2 ft (2–2.5 m). Hurley 

(2005, p. 2), however, reported 

specimens attaining 15.4 ft (4.7 m). Platt 

and Rainwater (2005, p. 25) stated that 

size estimates where shorter lengths 

were documented were probably based 

on populations that had been heavily 

impacted by hunting and which now 

contained few large adults. The 

Morelet’s crocodile is distinguished 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

from other crocodiles, particularly the 

partially sympatric (having the same or 

overlapping distribution) and somewhat 

larger American crocodile, by the 

number of dorsal scales in each 

transverse row on its back, the number 

and arrangement of nuchal scales 

(located at the nape of the neck), and 

irregular scales on the ventrolateral 

(lower side) surface of the tail (Meerman 

1994, p. 110; Navarro Serment 2004, pp. 

55–56; Platt and Rainwater 2005, p. 27; 

Herna ́ndez Hurtado et al. 2006, p. 376; 

Platt et al. 2008b, p. 294). The Morelet’s 

crocodile has six nuchal scales of 

similar size compared to other crocodile 

species, which have either four nuchal 

scales or four large nuchal scales and 

two small ones (CITES 2010a, p.11). 

Unlike most other species of 

crocodilians, the Morelet’s crocodile 

lacks bony plates beneath the skin 

(osteoderms), making their skin more 

valuable as leather (Hurley 2005, p. 9). 

Adults have a yellowish-olive black 

skin, usually showing big black spots at 

the tail and at the back area, which in 

some adults can be entirely black. The 

ventral (underside) area is light in color, 

with a creamy yellowish tone. A thick 

and soft skin has made the Morelet’s 

crocodile desirable for 

commercialization (CITES 2010a, p. 3). 

Opportunistic carnivores, juvenile 

Morelet’s crocodiles feed on small 

invertebrates, especially insects and 

arachnids, while subadults eat a more 

diverse diet including mollusks, 

crustaceans, fish, amphibians, and small 

reptiles. Adult crocodiles consume 

reptiles, birds, and mammals (Platt et al. 

2002, p. 82; Sa ́nchez 2005, p. 7; Platt et 

al. 2006, pp. 283–285; CITES 2008, p. 9, 

CITES 2010a, p. 3). This species is also 

known to exhibit necrophagy 

(consumption of dead animal carcasses 

over an extended period (several days)) 

and interspecific kleptoparasitism 

(stealing of food from an individual by 

another individual) (Platt et al. 2007, p. 

310). 

Morelet’s crocodiles attain sexual 

maturity at about 4.9 ft (1.5 m) in length, 

at approximately 7–8 years of age. A 

growth rate of 0.63 inches (in) per 

month (1.6 centimeters (cm) per month) 

was observed in Morelet’s crocodiles 

during the first 3 years of life under 

protected conditions in Mexico, while a 

rate of 0.94–1.18 in per month (2.4–3.0 

cm per month) was achieved under 

farming conditions (Pe ́rez-Higareda et 

al. 1995, p. 173). Adult females build 

nests and lay 20–40 eggs per clutch 

(Hurley 2005, p. 3; Sa ́nchez 2005, p. 6), 

with an average of 35 eggs per clutch 

(CITES 2008, p. 9, CITES 2010a, p. 3). 

Nests, usually constructed of leaf 

mounds at the beginning of the wet 

season (April–June), are located on the 

shores of freshwater wetlands, as well as 

in coastal lagoons and mangrove 

patches (Platt et al. 2008a, pp. 179–182). 

An analysis based on DNA 

microsatellite data from hatchlings 

collected at 10 Morelet’s crocodile nests 

in Belize showed that progeny from five 

of the 10 nests were sired by at least two 

males (McVay et al. 2008, p. 643). These 

data suggested that multiple paternity 

was a mating strategy for the Morelet’s 

crocodile and was not an isolated event. 

In addition, this information may be 

useful in the application of conservation 

and management techniques for the 

species. 

The eggs of Morelet’s crocodiles hatch 

in September–October, 65–90 days after 

they are laid. Females attend the nest 

during incubation, and can assist the 

newborns to leave the nest. Both parents 

protect juveniles against predators and 

other adult crocodiles (CITES 2010a, p. 

3). Nest failures due to flooding and 

predation, both avian and mammalian, 

are common (Platt et al. 2008a, p. 184). 

Expected lifespan in the wild is 50–65 

years (Hurley 2005, p. 4.) The Morelet’s 

crocodile exhibits and shares with other 

crocodilians many acoustic and visual 

signals that convey reproductive, 

territorial, and other types of 

information (Senter 2008, p. 354). 

The Morelet’s crocodile occurs 

primarily in freshwater environments 

such as lakes, swamps, and slowmoving rivers, but can temporarily 

inhabit intermittent freshwater bodies, 

such as flooded savannahs, and 

occasionally observed in brackish 

coastal lagoons (Villegas 2006, p. 8). 

Floating and emergent vegetation 

provide cover to protect young 

crocodiles from predators, including 

cannibalism by adult crocodiles 

(Sa ́nchez 2005, p. 7). In contrast to the 

Morelet’s crocodile, the American 

crocodile feeds mainly on fish and 

occurs primarily in coastal or brackish 

environments, such as coastal mangrove 

swamps, brackish and salt water bays, 

lagoons, marshes, tidal rivers, and 

brackish creeks. American crocodiles 

can also be found in abandoned coastal 

canals and borrow pits and may range 

inland into freshwater environments 

preferred by the Morelet’s crocodile 

such as lakes and lower reaches of large 

rivers. American and Morelet’s 

crocodiles have been known to lay eggs 

within the same nest mound as 

conspecifics, suggesting a more 

gregarious and tolerant demeanor (Brien 

et al. 2007, pp. 17–18). 

The historical distribution of the 

Morelet’s crocodile comprised the 

eastern coastal plain of Mexico, most of 

the Yucatan Peninsula, Belize, and 

northern Guatemala (Hurley 2005, p. 1), 

with an estimated historical distribution 

covering 173,746 mi2 (450,000 km2) 

(Sigler and Domı ́nguez Laso 2008, pp. 

11–12). Based on the analyses 

conducted for the petition, 

approximately 51 percent of the original 

geographic distribution in Mexico 

remains undisturbed, while 

approximately 49 percent is disturbed 

or altered. In linear terms, the amount 

of undisturbed shoreline habitat 

available in Mexico to the Morelet’s 

crocodile is about 15,534 mi (25,000 

km) of shoreline, which is 

approximately 72 percent of the total 

undisturbed shoreline habitat available 

throughout the species’ range. 

According to CONABIO, the amount of 

undisturbed shoreline habitat available 

to the Morelet’s crocodile in Belize and 

Guatemala is estimated to be 2,050 mi 

(3,300 km) and 4,163 mi (6,700 km), 

respectively, or 9 and 19 percent of the 

total undisturbed shoreline habitat 

available throughout the species’ range 

(CONABIO 2005, pp. 16–19). 

Historical estimates of total 

population sizes in the three range 

countries are unavailable or imprecise, 

and we were not able to find any 

additional data on historical, range-wide 

population estimates for the species. 

While not quantifiable or documented 

by field surveys, Lee (1996, p. 134) 

characterized the historical distribution 

and abundance of the Morelet’s 

crocodile in the Yucatan Peninsula of 

Mexico as follows: ‘‘Throughout its 

range, nearly every local aguada (flood) 

has (or had) its lagarto, which generally 

proves to be C. moreletii.’’ The same 

probably could be said about Belize and 

Guatemala. 

It has been widely reported, however, 

that by the middle of the 20th Century, 

populations of Morelet’s crocodiles 

were widely depleted due primarily to 

overharvest for commercial purposes 

during the 1940s–1950s. In ‘‘Crocodiles: 

An action plan for their conservation,’’ 

Thorbjarnarson (1992, p. 68 and the 

references cited therein) characterized 

the Mexican populations of Morelet’s 

crocodiles in the early 1990s as very 

depleted in the Mexican States of 

Tamaulipas and Veracruz, recovering to 

some degree and viable in northeastern 

Mexico, and severely threatened in 

Tabasco State and Campeche State. 

However, populations of Morelet’s 

crocodiles were not depleted in 

southern Chiapas State and eastern 

Quintana Roo State (Sian Ka’an 

Biosphere Reserve). 

Few historical estimates for the 

Morelet’s crocodile in Belize are 

available, but based on surveys during 

1978 and 1979, Abercrombie et al. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23653 

(1980, p. 103) reported that very few 

adults were observed in areas where 

they had previously been relatively 

abundant. This condition was attributed 

to overexploitation (i.e., commercial 

trade in hides). Thorbjarnarson (1992, p. 

55) characterized the Morelet’s 

crocodile populations in the early 1990s 

as generally depleted in the northern 

part of Belize, but relatively abundant in 

several other areas. Abercrombie et al. 

estimated the total population of 

Morelet’s crocodiles older than 9 

months of age in Belize at 2,200–2,500 

individuals (Abercrombie et al. 1982, p. 

16). Nothing was known in the scientific 

literature at that time about populations 

in the southern part of Belize. The only 

available countrywide estimates for the 

Morelet’s crocodile in Belize suggested 

a total population size of 25,000–30,000 

individuals that was declining in 

number in 1945, was near depletion 

between 1970 and 1980, and, in 

response to several protective measures, 

had undergone a slow recovery by 2000 

to about 20,000 individuals (Finger et 

al. 2002, p. 199). 

Thorbjarnarson (1992, p. 64) 

characterized the Guatemalan 

populations in the early 1990s as 

depleted, but capable of recovery. He 

indicated that 75 individuals had been 

reported at three lakes in the Pete ́n 

Region, in the northern portion of the 

country, and that Morelet’s crocodiles 

were known to be common in other 

parts of that region. 

By the late 1990s, little had changed 

with regard to our knowledge of the 

distribution and abundance of the 

Morelet’s crocodile. In ‘‘Crocodiles: 

Status survey and conservation action 

plan (second edition),’’ Ross (1998, pp. 

46–47) characterized several 

populations of Morelet’s crocodiles in 

all three countries as depleted. In some 

areas, however, including the Lacando ́n 

Forest (Chiapas State, Mexico) and the 

Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve (Quintana 

Roo State, Mexico), healthy populations 

of the Morelet’s crocodile existed. These 

findings were based on anecdotal 

reports and incidental records; 

numerical data were not readily 

available. 

Based on extrapolations of habitat 

relationships (e.g., vegetation type, size 

of wetland/riverine feature, and 

disturbance factors; described in more 

detail in CONABIO 2005, pp. 16–19) 

and frequency of encounter rates 

(derived from country-specific field 

research), the potential global 

population of free-ranging Morelet’s 

crocodiles in 2004 was estimated to be 

102,432 individuals (all age classes; 

79,718 individuals in Mexico, 8,803 in 

Belize, and 13,911 in Guatemala), 

including approximately 19,400 adults 

(CONABIO 2005, pp. 17–19). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations, 50 CFR part 

424, set forth the procedures for listing, 

reclassifying, or removing species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as 

including any species or subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the 

‘‘species’’ is determined, we then 

evaluate whether that species may be 

endangered or threatened because of 

one or more of the five factors described 

in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must 

consider these same five factors in 

reclassifying or delisting a species. For 

species that are already listed as 

endangered or threatened, the analysis 

of threats must include an evaluation of 

both the threats currently facing the 

species, and the threats that are 

reasonably likely to affect the species in 

the foreseeable future following the 

delisting or downlisting and the 

removal or reduction of the Act’s 

protections. We may delist a species 

according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

indicate that the species is neither 

endangered nor threatened for the 

following reasons: (1) The species is 

extinct; (2) the species has recovered 

and is no longer endangered or 

threatened; and/or (3) the original 

scientific data used at the time the 

species was classified were in error. 

Factor A. Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

The overharvest for commercial 

purposes, rather than habitat 

destruction or modification, was the 

primary reason for the Morelet’s 

crocodile being listed under the Act and 

its inclusion in CITES. However, the 

Five Factor Analysis under the Act 

requires an analysis of current and 

future potential impacts to the species 

based on modification or destruction of 

habitat. 

The petition (CONABIO 2005) 

highlights habitat degradation as a 

potential threat, especially if it involves 

lack of prey and eventual contamination 

of water bodies. Currently, the extent of 

habitat degradation is estimated to be 

moderate in Mexico and Belize, and 

slightly higher in northern Pete ́n, 

Guatemala (CONABIO 2005, Annex 1, p. 

10). However, as stated previously, 

historical estimates of range-wide 

habitat destruction for the Morelet’s 

crocodile are unavailable or imprecise. 

We found that the data on habitat 

destruction was primarily presented 

separately for each individual country. 

Therefore, the following analysis of the 

potential threats to the species from 

habitat destruction or modification first 

presents the specific information 

available for the Morelet’s crocodile in 

each country, and then presents the 

general information that was available 

for the species as a whole. 

Mexico 

The Morelet’s crocodile is known 

historically from 10 states in Mexico 

(from east to west): Quintana Roo, 

Yucata ́n, Campeche, Chiapas, Tabasco, 

Veracruz, Oaxaca, Hidalgo, San Luis 

Potosı ́, and Tamaulipas (A ́ guilar 2005, 

p. 2). Based on available information 

and interviews during a 1995 site visit 

to Mexico by the IUCN Crocodile 

Specialist Group, Ross (1998, p. 13) 

suggested ‘‘with some confidence’’ that 

the Morelet’s crocodile was widely 

distributed throughout most of its 

original range. At the request of the 

petitioner, these states were resurveyed 

to assess current Morelet’s crocodile 

populations in those areas. 

Surveys conducted between 2000 and 

2004 documented the widespread 

distribution and relative abundance of 

wild populations of the Morelet’s 

crocodile in Mexico (Domı ́nguez-Laso et 

al. 2005, pp. 21–30; also summarized in 

Sa ́nchez Herrera 2000, pp. 17–19; 

CONABIO 2005, pp. 11–13 and Annex 

5; Sa ́nchez Herrera and A ́ lvarez-Romero 

2008, page 415; Garcı ́a et al. 2007, pp. 

31–32; Sigler and Domı ́nguez Laso 2008, 

pp. 11–13). Surveys found Morelet’s 

crocodiles at 63 sites across all 10 

Mexican states comprising the species’ 

entire historic range in Mexico 

(CONABIO 2005, p. 12). Habitat 

evaluations based on five environmental 

components rated habitat quality as 

excellent at 10 sites (24 percent), or as 

favorable or suitable at 24 sites (57 

percent). Furthermore, evidence of the 

presence of the Morelet’s crocodile was 

found in cultivated areas and at sites 

with ‘‘intermediate’’ quality habitats 

(CONABIO 2005, p. 13). This suggested 

that the Morelet’s crocodile does not 

require undisturbed habitat in order to 

occupy a site. Habitat mapping resulted 

in an estimated minimum of 15,675 mi 

(25,227 km) of shoreline as suitable 

Morelet’s crocodile habitat in Mexico, 

which is 72 percent of the estimated 

suitable shoreline habitat available 

throughout the species range (CONABIO 

2005, pp. 14–16). 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Population characteristics of the 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico were 

also determined during the 2000–2004 

field surveys. All age classes were well 

represented (34 percent juveniles; 47 

percent subadults; and 19 percent 

adults), indicating good recruitment 

(Domı ́nguez-Laso et al. 2005, p. 31). A 

higher proportion of males to females 

(1.55 to 1 overall versus about 1 male 

per female) was observed in all age 

classes, except older subadults 

(Domı ́nguez-Laso et al. 2005, pp. 33– 

34). Mean frequency of encounter, based 

on 62 localities surveyed—excluding 

one outlier site with an atypically large 

crocodile population—was 5.76 

individuals per 0.62 mi (= 1 kilometer 

(km)) of shoreline (mode = 3.16 

individuals per km); Domı ́nguez-Laso et 

al. 2005, pp. 30, 40). These frequency of 

encounter rates were similar to those 

reported for other sites, for example: (1) 

Sigler et al. (2002, p. 222) reported rates 

of 8.33–18.5 individuals per km at 

various sites throughout Mexico and 

commented that these were the highest 

rates ever reported for that country; (2) 

Ceden ̃ o-Va ́zquez (2002, p. 353) reported 

rates of 1–2 individuals per km, when 

present (22 of 40 surveys; 711 

individuals counted; all age classes 

represented; hatchlings in September), 

at Bahia de Chetumal and Rı ́o Hondo, 

Mexico (n = 17 sites) and commented on 

the recovery of the species; (3) Ceden ̃oVa ́zquez et al. (2006, p. 15) reported 

rates of 7.6 and 5.3 individuals per km 

at La Arriguen ̃ a, Campeche State, and 

commented that this suggested a healthy 

population. A population estimate— 

based on (a) extrapolations of 3.16 

individuals per km, (b) 19 percent 

adults, and (c) a cautious estimate of 

occupied habitat (15,675 mi (25,227 km) 

of river habitat)—produced a result of 

approximately 79,718 wild individuals 

(all ages) in Mexico comprising 78 

percent of the total wild population, 

including approximately 15,146 adults 

in Mexico (Domı ́nguez-Laso 2005, p. 

40). 

New information now available to the 

Service documents updates in the 

geographic distribution of the Morelet’s 

crocodile in Mexico. Because of several 

unauthorized introductions or escapes 

from captive-breeding facilities in areas 

outside of the reported range of the 

species, the Morelet’s crocodile has 

become established in the wild at three 

sites: Chacahua, Oaxaca State; Villa 

Flores, Chiapas State; and Laguna de 

Alcuzahue, Colima State (A ́ lvarez 

Romero et al. 2008, p. 415). Several 

captive-breeding facilities along the 

Pacific coast in western Mexico contain 

Morelet’s crocodiles. These facilities are 

located in areas outside of the reported 

range of the species, but potentially 

with appropriate habitat for this species. 

Concerns have been raised about these 

introductions and the potential negative 

impacts of this ‘‘exotic’’ or ‘‘invasive’’ 

species on the local biota (A ́ lvarez 

Romero et al. 2008, pp. 415 and 417). 

The Government of Mexico is making 

efforts to diagnose potential threats to 

the native American crocodile caused 

by hybridization with the introduced 

Morelet’s crocodile on the Pacific coast 

of Mexico. The goal of these efforts is to 

generate morphological and molecular 

identification materials and study the 

population dynamics of the American 

crocodile. It will include monitoring 

and harvest of Morelet’s crocodiles and 

hybrids for scientific research (CITES 

2010a, p. 6). 

According to the information 

presented in CONABIO 2005, the 

Morelet’s crocodile in Mexico occupies 

at least 12 protected areas (CONABIO 

2005, p. 30 and Annex 6). Part of the 

Sistema Nacional de A ́ reas Naturales 

Protegidas (SINANP or National System 

of Protected Natural Areas, described 

more fully in the Factor D section, 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms), encompasses 13 percent 

of the species’ range and include the 

following areas: Los Tuxtlas Biosphere 

Reserve, Pantanos de Centla Biosphere 

Reserve, Laguna de Te ́rminos Biosphere 

Reserve, Hampolol Wildlife 

Conservation and Research Center, El 

Palmar State Preserve, Rı ́a Lagartos 

Biosphere Reserve, Yum Balam 

Biosphere Reserve, Laguna Nichupte, 

Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, Bahia 

Chetumal (Bay) and Rı ́o Hondo (River). 

The Government of Mexico’s 2010 

CITES proposal to transfer the Morelet’s 

crocodile from CITES Appendix I to 

CITES Appendix II provided updated 

information on the number of protected 

areas for the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Mexico. About 77 Federal and certified 

protected areas in Mexico provide 

shelter and legal protection to the 

Morelet’s crocodile in its potential 

range. Of these, 11 have records of the 

species covering 7,763,147 acres (ac) 

(3,141,634 hectares (ha)) (CITES 2010a, 

pp. 11, 17–20). The Government of 

Mexico designated eight of the eleven 

protected areas containing Morelet’s 

crocodiles as Biosphere Reserves, and 

the three remaining protected areas 

containing Morelet’s crocodiles as Flora 

and Fauna Protection Areas. As stated 

above, these protected areas are part of 

SINANP (described more fully in the 

Factor D section, Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms). 

The Government of Mexico’s 2010 

CITES proposal used both a narrative 

description (CITES 2010a, p. 11) and a 

list (CITES 2010a, pp. 17–20) to indicate 

that there are 11 federally protected 

areas in Mexico containing Morelet’s 

crocodile. CONABIO 2005 used a 

narrative description (CONABIO 2005, 

p. 30) to indicate that there are at least 

12 federally protected areas in Mexico 

containing Morelet’s crocodile 

(CONABIO 2005, p. 30), but did not 

include a list of the federally protected 

areas. Based on the information 

available to the Service, we were unable 

to find any additional data to explain 

the difference between in the numbers 

of federally protected areas cited in 

these two documents. The Government 

of Mexico’s 2010 CITES proposal is the 

more recent document, and we consider 

it to contain the best available scientific 

and commercial data on the number of 

federally protected areas in Mexico. 

The Convention on Wetlands of 

International Importance especially as 

Waterfowl Habitat (also known as the 

Ramsar Convention) is an 

intergovernmental treaty that provides a 

framework for international cooperation 

for the conservation of wetland habitats. 

CONABIO 2005 did not provide 

information on whether the Ramsar 

Convention protects any Morelet’s 

crocodile habitat in Mexico. However, 

this information was included in the 

Government of Mexico’s 2010 CITES 

proposal. According to their 2010 CITES 

proposal, there are 41 Ramsar sites in 

the potential range of the Morelet’s 

crocodile in Mexico, 13 of which have 

records of the species covering 

6,779,875 ac (2,743,718 ha) (CITES 

2010a, pp. 11, 17–20). 

According to the information 

presented in CONABIO 2005, one of the 

main potential threats to the Morelet’s 

crocodile is habitat destruction and 

fragmentation due to residential and 

infrastructure development, such as 

dams, roads, residential areas, and 

irrigated fields (CONABIO 2005, Annex 

2, pp. 4–5). The information presented 

in CONABIO 2005 indicated that land 

reform and the ensuing colonization of 

undeveloped areas is a potential threat 

to the Morelet’s crocodile, but the 

Government of Mexico has no such 

actions planned at this time (CONABIO 

2005, p. 33). This threat of habitat 

degradation is ameliorated in Mexico by 

the Ley General de Equilibrio Ecolo ́gico 

y Proteccio ́n al Ambiente (LGEEPA; 

General Ecological Equilibrium and 

Environmental Protection Law). This 

1988 law has strict restrictions against 

land use changes in Mexico, especially 

for undisturbed habitat such as those 

areas used by the Morelet’s crocodile 

(CONABIO 2005, p. 25). This law is 

supported by several others in Mexico 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23655 

that ensure the conservation of native 

flora and fauna in Mexico (see 

discussion in the Factor D section, 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms; also see CONABIO 2005, 

Annex 3). 

According to the information 

presented by CONABIO, even in the 

historic context of prolonged habitat 

alteration, wild populations of Morelet’s 

crocodiles remained abundant; so much 

so that large, commercial exploitation of 

the species was occurring up until 

Federal and international protections 

were put in place 40 years ago. 

Alteration of Morelet’s crocodile habitat 

occurring since then may have 

produced some additional reductions in 

local populations, but these reductions 

are not comparable to those of the past. 

In addition, even in areas where 

changes to the original environment are 

not reversible, evidence points to a 

certain degree of tolerance by Morelet’s 

crocodiles, especially when the habitat 

alterations are a result of agriculture or 

low technology livestock production 

(CONABIO 2005, p. 25). 

Based on surveys, it appears that the 

Morelet’s crocodile in Mexico occurs in 

all 10 states from where it traditionally 

has been reported (CONABIO 2005, pp. 

11–19). Although approximately 49 

percent of the original range in Mexico 

has been altered, much of the altered 

habitat is still occupied by the Morelet’s 

crocodile. Approximately 77,220 mi2

(200,000 km2) of undisturbed habitat 

remains in Mexico, which is equivalent 

to approximately 15,534 mi (25,000 km) 

of shoreline. The Government of Mexico 

protects habitat occupied by the 

Morelet’s crocodile in 11 areas 

designated by the Government of 

Mexico as either Biosphere Reserves or 

Flora and Fauna Protection Areas 

covering a total of 7,763,147 ac 

(3,141,634 ha). In addition, the Ramsar 

Convention protects Morelet’s crocodile 

habitat at 13 sites in Mexico covering 

6,779,875 ac (2,743,718 ha). We do not 

have any information or data on the 

amount of geographic overlap, if any, 

between the areas of habitat protected 

by the Government of Mexico versus 

that protected by the Ramsar 

Convention. Therefore, we considered 

these two protection mechanisms as 

providing separate, but complimentary, 

habitat protection as part of our analysis 

of habitat protection under this 

proposed rule. 

We find that the information 

presented in the petition, as well as the 

additional information available to the 

Service, represents the best available 

scientific and commercial data on 

habitat destruction or modification for 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico. 

Although moderate habitat destruction 

or modification is currently affecting 

local populations of Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Mexico, and this is likely 

to continue in the foreseeable future, 

these activities would not have a 

significant impact on the species 

because they would be subject to 

conservation measures under the 

Government of Mexico’s regulatory 

framework. This framework will 

continue to provide adequate protection 

to the Morelet’s crocodile and its habitat 

in the foreseeable future. Surveys 

conducted found Morelet’s crocodiles at 

63 sites across all 10 Mexican states 

comprising the species’ entire historic 

range in Mexico (CONABIO 2005, p. 

12). Given that Mexico contains more 

than 85 percent of the species’ natural 

range, an estimated 78 percent of all 

wild individuals, that 7,763,147 ac 

(3,141,634 ha) of habitat are protected 

by the Government of Mexico, and that 

6,779,875 ac (2,743,718 ha) of habitat 

are protected by the Ramsar Convention, 

we conclude that habitat destruction or 

modification is neither a threat, nor is 

it anticipated to significantly impact the 

Morelet’s crocodile in Mexico in the 

foreseeable future. 

Belize 

The Morelet’s crocodile was 

historically known from all six states in 

Belize (from north to south): Corozal, 

Orange Walk, Belize, Cayo, Stann Creek, 

and Toledo (Anonymous 1998). 

According to information provided by 

CONABIO, virtually all of the country 

contained suitable habitat for the 

species. The style of economic 

development in Belize has not required 

massive alteration of the natural 

environment. Thus, in general, no 

extensive and drastic alteration of 

Morelet’s crocodile habitat has occurred 

in Belize (CONABIO 2005, p. 26). The 

current amount of altered versus 

unaltered current habitat for the 

Morelet’s crocodile in Belize is 

unknown, but the petitioners estimated 

the current amount of potentially 

suitable habitat to be approximately 

2,050 mi (3,300 km) of shoreline 

(CONABIO 2005, pp.14–19). 

While the species is widespread in 

the northern portion of the country, it is 

naturally limited to a narrow region of 

lowlands along the coast in the southern 

part of Belize, which is otherwise 

mountainous (Schmidt 1924, p. 80; 

Abercrombie et al. 1982, pp. 12–16; 

Platt et al. 1999, p. 395; Platt and 

Thorbjarnarson 2000a, pp. 25–26). 

Although the Government of Belize was 

not a party to the petition, teams not 

associated with the Mexican effort to 

delist the species recently surveyed 

these states, in part, to assess Morelet’s 

crocodile populations in those areas. 

Based on recent surveys, all six districts 

historically known to contain Morelet’s 

crocodiles were surveyed in a general 

characterization of the biodiversity of 

Belize (Boles 2005, p. 4; Belize Forest 

Department 2006, p. 22; BiologicalDiversity.info website 2009). At Spanish 

Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, in the northcentral part of the country, Meerman et 

al. (2004, pp. 23–24 and 30–32) 

determined that the Morelet’s crocodile 

was fairly common at the site (frequency 

of encounter rate = 1.4–2.4 individuals 

per km). At Mayflower Bocawina 

National Park, near the coast in the 

southeastern part of the country, 

Meerman et al. (2003b, p. 30) 

unexpectedly located the Morelet’s 

crocodile at fast-flowing streams such as 

Silk Grass Creek. While this specimen 

could have been introduced at the site, 

its occurrence could also be natural. 

Along the Macal River, in west-central 

Belize, Stafford et al. (2003, pp. 18 and 

20) located a breeding population of the 

Morelet’s crocodile (frequency of 

encounter rate = 1.48 individuals per 

km) (2001) and 1.25 individuals per km 

(2002) at a mountainous site at 1,476 ft 

(450 m) elevation (higher than 

expected). A total population size at the 

Macal River site was calculated to be, at 

minimum, about 94 individuals 

(Stafford et al. 2003, p. 19). 

Earlier comparisons between spotlight 

surveys conducted in northern Belize in 

1979–1980 and 1992–1997 also showed 

that Morelet’s crocodiles were widely 

distributed and relatively abundant 

across several habitat types and levels of 

human accessibility (Platt and 

Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 23). In 

addition to an extensive system of 

nature reserves including significant 

areas of crocodile habitat, these 

researchers noted relatively high 

Morelet’s crocodile encounter rates in 

wetlands surrounding sugarcane fields 

in this area. Morelet’s crocodiles were 

observed in canals and ditches within 

the municipal limits of Belize City and 

Orange Walk, as well as in wetlands 

easily accessible from many villages 

(Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 23). 

Population characteristics of Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Belize were also 

determined during these surveys. Size 

class distribution—25.4 percent adults 

in the 1990s, compared with 5–10 

percent in an earlier study—was 

consistent with population recovery 

from past overexploitation (Platt and 

Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 24). Platt and 

Thorbjarnarson (2000b, pp. 23, 26) 

reported an overall frequency of 

encounter of 1.56 individuals per km; 

encounter rates were much higher in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

nonalluvial (8.20 individuals per km) 

and alluvial (6.11 individuals per km) 

lagoons than in rivers and creeks (0.95 

individuals per km) or in mangrove 

habitats (0.24 individuals per km). 

While a significant, male-biased sex 

ratio (5.3 males per 1 female versus 

about 1 male per female) was identified, 

the reasons were unclear (Platt and 

Thorbjarnarson 2000a, pp. 23, 27). 

Based on extrapolations of habitat 

relationships in Mexico (which results 

in an estimated 2,080 mi (3,347 km) of 

potential habitat in Belize) and an 

average frequency of encounter of 2.63 

individuals per km, CONABIO stated 

that these results suggested a total 

Belize population estimate for the 

Morelet’s crocodile of about 8,803 

individuals in the wild (all age classes), 

comprising 9 percent of the total wild 

population, including about 1,673 

adults (CONABIO 2005, p. 18). 

Although this is not a typically 

constructed population estimate, this 

estimate constitutes the best available 

scientific and commercial data for the 

nationwide abundance of Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Belize. Although Platt 

suggested that these overall values for 

Belize may be somewhat inflated 

because habitat in southern Belize is 

less suitable for Morelet’s crocodiles 

than areas in the north (Platt 2008, pers. 

comm.), frequency of encounter values 

for Morelet’s crocodile populations and 

total population sizes in Belize may 

have further increased due to continued 

protection for over a decade since these 

surveys in the 1990s. Boles (2005, p. 4) 

and Belize Forest Department (2006, p. 

22), based on countrywide analyses, 

both suggested that the Morelet’s 

crocodile had ‘‘recovered’’ in Belize and 

could be categorized as ‘‘healthy.’’ 

CONABIO did not present 

information about the distribution and 

abundance of the Morelet’s crocodile in 

protected areas in Belize. Other 

information obtained by the Service, 

however, suggests that the species is 

present in many protected areas in 

Belize, including: Sarstoon Temash 

National Park (Meerman et al. 2003a, p. 

45), Mayflower Bocawina National Park 

(Meerman, et al. 2003b, p. 30), and 

Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary 

(Meerman et al. 2004, pp. 30–31). 

Overall, about 18–26 percent of the 

national territory of Belize is under 

some form of protection (BERDS 2005b, 

p. 1; Young 2008, p. 29). In several of 

these protected areas, natural resource 

extraction is permitted from the site, 

thus potentially limiting their 

contribution to the conservation status 

of the Morelet’s crocodile. However, we 

have no evidence that resource 

extraction in these Belizean protected 

areas is currently or anticipated to affect 

significantly the Morelet’s crocodile. 

We find that the data presented by 

CONABIO, and additional data available 

to the Service, represents the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

on habitat destruction or modification 

for Morelet’s crocodiles in Belize. 

Although habitat destruction or 

modification is currently affecting some 

local populations of Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Belize, and this is likely to 

continue in the foreseeable future, we 

do not have any evidence that habitat 

destruction or modification is currently 

or anticipated to be a threat to the 

Morelet’s crocodile in Belize. 

Guatemala 

The Morelet’s crocodile was 

historically known from the northern 

portion of Guatemala (States of Pete ́n 

and Alta Verapaz; Schmidt 1924, pp. 

79–84). According to information 

provided by CONABIO, the Pete ́n region 

of Guatemala was scarcely populated by 

humans before 1960 (an estimated 

15,000 to 21,000 inhabitants in 

approximately 12,960 square miles 

(33,566 km2) or about one third of 

Guatemala’s area) (CONABIO 2005). In 

1961, the Government of Guatemala 

started an official program to foster 

colonization in the region, and this 

caused environmental alteration, as well 

as increased human conflicts with 

crocodiles. Slightly more than 50 

percent of the potential habitat for the 

Morelet’s crocodile has been altered in 

Guatemala (CONABIO 2005, p. 26). 

While the current amount of altered 

versus unaltered habitat for the 

Morelet’s crocodile in Guatemala is 

unknown, the petitioners estimated the 

current amount of potentially suitable 

habitat to be approximately 4,163 mi 

(6,700 km) of shoreline (CONABIO 

2005, pp.14–19). According to 

information provided by CONABIO, 

studies on the status of Morelet’s 

crocodile habitat and population in 

Guatemala are underway, and the 

potential threats to the species are under 

assessment (CONABIO 2005, p. 26). 

Recent nationwide survey results are 

not available for Guatemala, but 

populations appear to remain in their 

historical range in the northern part of 

the country, especially the central 

portion of the State of Pete ́n, Laguna del 

Tigre National Park (northwestern 

portion of the State of Pete ́n) (Castan ̃ eda 

Moya et al. 2000, p.63) and the El 

Mirador-Rı ́o Azul National Park 

(ParksWatch, 2002, page 3). The Laguna 

del Tigre National Park, the largest 

national park in Guatemala and the 

largest protected wetland in Central 

America, is home to the largest numbers 

of Morelet’s crocodiles in Guatemala 

(ParksWatch 2003, p. 1). 

While information regarding the 

distribution and abundance of Morelet’s 

crocodile in Guatemala is sparse, 

investigations conducted in Laguna del 

Tigre National Park (date unspecified, 

reported in 1998) estimated 4.35 

individuals per km in the Sacluc River 

and 2.1 individuals per km in the San 

Pedro River, with a population structure 

typical of stable populations (Castan ̃ eda 

Moya 1998a, p. 13). Castan ̃ eda Moya 

(1997, p. 1; 1998a, p. 521) characterized 

Morelet’s crocodile distribution in the 

northern State of Pete ́n, Guatemala, as 

fragmented, with the healthiest 

populations in the northern region of 

Pete ́n, where human impact was lower. 

In a follow-up study at Laguna del Tigre 

National Park Castan ̃ eda Moya et al. 

(2000, pp. 62–63) reported a mean 

frequency of encounter rate for the 

entire park of 4.3 individuals per km, 

with maximum values of 12.28 

individuals per km at Flor de Luna and 

11.00 individuals per km at Laguna La 

Pista. The Morelet’s crocodile was more 

frequently encountered in closed 

aquatic systems than in open aquatic 

systems. Juveniles were more frequently 

observed than were adults. 

Based on extrapolations of habitat 

relationships in Mexico (which resulted 

in an estimated 4,159.8 mi (6,694.5 km) 

of potential habitat in Guatemala) and 

an average frequency of encounter of 

2.078 individuals per km, CONABIO 

stated that there is an estimated total 

Guatemalan population of Morelet’s 

crocodile of about 13,911 individuals in 

the wild (all age classes) comprising 13 

percent of the total wild population, 

including about 2,643 adults (CONABIO 

2005, p. 18). Although this is not a 

typically constructed population 

estimate, this population estimate 

constitutes the best available scientific 

and commercial data for the nationwide 

abundance of Morelet’s crocodiles in 

Guatemala. 

While Guatemala has regulatory 

mechanisms in place to protect these 

habitats, it appears that the Government 

of Guatemala, until recently, was not 

able to enforce them adequately. 

Resource extraction, drug trade, a lack 

of enforcement, and financial issues 

limited protected areas’ potential 

contribution to the conservation status 

of the Morelet’s crocodile (IARNA URL 

IIA 2006, pp. 88–92). For example, the 

Laguna del Tigre National Park, together 

with the Laguna del Tigre Protected 

Biotope, was considered critically 

threatened by drug trade, land grabs, the 

presence of human settlements, 

expanding agriculture and cattle 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23657 

ranching, poaching, forest fires, the oil 

industry, and the almost complete lack 

of institutional control over the area 

(ParksWatch 2003, p. 11.) ParksWatch 

also deemed this national park, and its 

surrounding area, would not meet its 

biological diversity objectives in the 

immediate future unless urgent steps 

were taken (ParksWatch 2003, p. 11.) 

However, the following year 

ParksWatch noted major improvements 

at Laguna del Tigre since their 2003 

report. We have obtained information 

on the specific protections recently 

provided to Morelet’s crocodiles in the 

conservation areas of Guatemala, and 

events that reveal a commitment by the 

Guatemalan government to curtail 

illegal activities harmful to Laguna del 

Tigre National Park. We will go into 

detail in the Factor D section, 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms. 

Castan ̃ eda Moya et al. (2000, p. 61), 

based on historical references, cited 

increased destruction of habitat due to 

human encroachment as having an 

adverse affect on the species. Based on 

the research at Laguna del Tigre 

National Park, Castan ̃ eda Moya et al. 

(2000, pp. 61 and 65) indicated that 

sibal (sawgrass) (Cladium jamaicense) 

was extensively burned each year. This 

burning constituted a major impact to 

the Morelet’s crocodile habitat, as sibal 

habitat offered suitable insulation, food 

availability, nesting cover, and 

protection from predators. Furthermore, 

the fires facilitated the expansion of 

savannahs consisting almost exclusively 

of jimbal (Bambusa longifolia). Studies 

on the Morelet’s crocodile in Pete ́n 

suggest fires in jimbal groves prevent 

Morelet’s crocodiles from reproducing 

since fire affects nesting sites 

(ParksWatch 2003, p. 13). In a more 

general sense, USAID (2002, pp. 19–23) 

and Ruiz Ordon ̃ ez (2005, pp. 2–8) 

indicated several conservation threats at 

the national level in Guatemala, 

including habitat loss, habitat 

degradation, habitat fragmentation, 

overutilization of resources, 

environmental contamination, and 

degradation, and the introduction of 

exotic species. 

For the past ten years, USAID and 

WCS having been working with other 

NGOs and the Guatemalan government 

to combat these issues. In their ‘‘Maya 

Biosphere Landscape Conservation 

Area, Guatemala, Implementation Plan 

FY 2008’’ (WCS 2009, page 3) the WCS 

highlighted their central goals for 

ensuring the conservation of wideranging target species, including the 

Morelet’s crocodile, was to contain the 

advance of the Laguna del Tigre agropastoral frontier and maintain the 

comparatively intact eastern bloc of the 

Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) forest. 

Strategies to reduce impacts to wildlife 

in the MBR landscape include involving 

people in local communities, forest 

concessions, governments, and NGOs in 

local conservation efforts; developing 

adaptive management strategies to 

address tactically threats across the 

landscape; and educating local 

communities on best management 

practices across the MBR and beyond. 

Since 2003, however, efforts by the 

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 

have reduced areas burned in the MBR 

in Guatemala. Through educating locals 

on best management practices, 

conducting aerial flights, utilizing 

remote sensing to monitor changes in 

forest cover and fire, and establishing 

and patrolling a 47-kilometer fire break, 

along with regularly reporting to the 

Guatemalan and provincial governments 

and national media, WCS’s efforts have 

resulted in a 90% reduction in areas 

burned in the Laguna del Tigre portion 

of the MBR (WCS 2009). 

In addition, the president of 

Guatemala recently deployed 250 

specially trained soldiers to recover 

fully all the protected zones of El Peten 

in Laguna del Tigre National Park. The 

contingent, called the ‘‘green battalion’’ 

will work jointly with the Guatemalan 

Attorney General’s Office. This effort is 

aimed at combating drug trafficking and 

removal or destruction of natural and 

archeological resources in Laguna del 

Tigre, El Peten region of the MBR (Latin 

American Herald Tribune, 2010). 

El Mirador-Rı ́o Azul National Park in 

northeastern Guatemala is located in the 

department of Pete ́n maintains a 

population of Morelet’s crocodiles 

(ParksWatch 2002, page 3). The park is 

composed of two sections, which are 

divided by the Dos Lagunas Biotope. 

The western section is known as El 

Mirador and the eastern part is known 

as Rı ́o Azul. This area is considered by 

World Resources Institute to be the last 

pristine Guatemalan rainforest. It is also 

one of the few protected areas that have 

experienced little deforestation over the 

years. No permanent human residents 

live within the park borders or in its 

immediate surrounding areas. El 

Mirador-Rı ́o Azul National Park is 

considered vulnerable, by ParksWatch, 

meaning that immediate conservation 

measures are not needed at this time, 

but monitoring is necessary to ensure 

the protection and maintenance of its 

biological diversity in the near future 

(ParksWatch, 2002, page 3). NGO’s such 

as Asociacio ́n Balam, WCS-Guatemala, 

the Asociatio ́n of Forest Communities of 

Pete ́n (ACOFOP), the Guatemalan 

National Park Service (CONAP), the 

Guatemalan Archeological Institute 

(IDAEH), and the office of the Executive 

Secretary of the President of Guatemala 

formed an alliance called the ‘‘Mesa 

Multisectorial para el Area Natural y 

Cultural de Mirador-Rio Azule’’. This 

alliance was formed to develop 

consensus among its team members 

regarding the long-term protection of the 

park and provide sustained economic 

contribution to the people of the MBR 

and of Guatemala. 

While CONABIO estimated that 

slightly more than 50 percent of the 

potential habitat for the Morelet’s 

crocodile has been altered in Guatemala, 

they gave no information indicating to 

what extent (CONABIO 2005, p. 26). 

Very little information has been 

collected about the consequences of 

forest fires, hunting, and habitat 

fragmentation to the Morelet’s crocodile. 

However, Mexico saw the presence of 

the Morelet’s crocodile in cultivated 

areas and at sites with ‘‘intermediate’’ 

quality habitats (CONABIO 2005, p. 13) 

and Belize noted relatively high 

Morelet’s crocodile encounter rates in 

wetlands surrounding sugarcane fields, 

canals and ditches within the municipal 

limits of Belize (Platt and 

Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 23). This 

information suggests that the Morelet’s 

crocodile does not require undisturbed 

habitat in order to occupy a site. The 

current amount of altered versus 

unaltered habitat for the Morelet’s 

crocodile in Guatemala is unknown, but 

the petitioners estimated the current 

amount of potentially suitable habitat to 

be approximately 4,163 mi (6,700 km) of 

shoreline (CONABIO 2005, pp.14–19). 

Other Threats to the Species’ Habitat 

Recreational and Educational Activities 

Nonconsumptive recreational or 

educational uses in the form of 

ecotourism are ongoing and may grow 

in magnitude in the future. While 

CONABIO did not present precise 

information about the number of 

companies or sites visited by tourists, an 

informal Internet search suggested that 

large numbers of ecotourism companies 

and nature sites in all three range 

countries were involved in this activity. 

At Tikal National Park in Guatemala, for 

example, the number of visitors has 

increased from 14,594 visitors in 1981 

to 141,899 visitors in 2002 (IARNA URL 

IIA 2006, p. 103). Many of these visitors 

potentially visited Morelet’s crocodile 

areas in the Pete ́n Region that are in the 

immediate vicinity of the park as part of 

their ecotourism experience. 

While we cannot completely rule out 

the potential for adverse effects to the 

Morelet’s crocodile due to disturbance 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

from ecotourism activity in Tikal 

National Park, we have found no 

evidence of such effects. Furthermore, 

we do not have any information to 

indicate that ecotourism is likely to 

become a serious problem in the future. 

Successful ecotourism, by its very 

nature, relies on the continued 

conservation and protection of the 

natural resources it uses. Although the 

number of visitors to protected areas is 

increasing and the demand for 

ecotourism may grow in the future, the 

ecotourism industry has a significant 

incentive to ensure that their activities 

do not become a serious problem to the 

Morelet’s crocodile and its habitat in the 

future. 

Mazzotti et al. (2005, p. 984), 

however, did identify the following 

negative impacts associated with 

tourism development at Sian Ka’an 

Biosphere Reserve (Mexico): 

(1) Habitat loss; 

(2) Alteration of surface and 

underground water flow; 

(3) Ground water pollution; 

(4) Extraction of resources; 

(5) Erosion and sedimentation; 

(6) Decrease in biodiversity; and 

(7) Reduced traditional and 

recreational use for local communities. 

Visual pollution, including trash, as 

well as ‘‘jeep safaris’’ (caravans of small 

convertible sports utility vehicles being 

driven through the reserve) and boat 

traffic, is also increasing at Sian Ka’an 

Biosphere Reserve (Mazzotti et al. 2005, 

p. 992). While none of these factors was 

specifically linked to the Morelet’s 

crocodile, all could apply were the 

situation to deteriorate. However, we do 

not have any information to indicate 

that the situation will deteriorate in the 

future. Biosphere Reserves in Mexico 

are part of the United Nations 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization’s (UNESCO) ‘‘Man and the 

Biosphere’’ program and are legally 

protected under Mexican federal laws. 

Key features of biosphere reserves are 

core zones of complete protection of key 

resources surrounded by mixed-use 

buffer zones. These buffer zones are 

particularly important given the 

pressures on the Sian Ka’an Biosphere 

Reserve from tourism, and its culturally 

and archeologically significant areas 

(Mazzotti et al. 2005, p. 982). 

Recognizing these potential negative 

factors, geographically dispersed 

ecotourism involving limited numbers 

of visitors under controlled conditions 

to observe and photograph specimens 

from canoes, photographic blinds, or 

hiking trails can provide relatively 

benign opportunities to local residents 

for economic benefits that can serve as 

an alternative or disincentive to harvest 

the Morelet’s crocodile (CONABIO 

2005, p. 28). 

There is also evidence that 

ecotourism, as well as scientific 

research and wildlife conservation, are 

compatible activities with respect to the 

Morelet’s crocodile. In Mexico, for 

example, ecotourists accompany 

biologists associated with the Amigos de 

Sian Ka’an group as they conduct 

surveys of the Morelet’s crocodile at 

Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, along the 

eastern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, 

Quintana Roo State (EcoColors Tours 

2010, pp. 1). At another site, the La 

Ventanilla Eco-tourism Project in 

Oaxaca State, Mexico, international 

volunteers assist local residents and 

biologists to conserve the Morelet’s 

crocodile, turtles, iguanas, and other 

species of wildlife (Volunteers for 

International Partnership—Mexico 

2010, 1–4). In Belize, tourists, as well as 

wildlife researchers from the United 

States and their Belizean counterparts, 

are implementing an ecological field 

study of the Morelet’s crocodile at 

Lamanai Outpost Lodge and Research 

Station that eventually will lead to the 

development of a national management 

plan for the species (The Croc Docs 

2010, pp. 1–6). If the biological data, in 

part collected by the ecotourists, 

support harvest, and effective 

enforcement regulations can be 

developed and implemented, this plan 

may include commercial exploitation of 

the Morelet’s crocodile. In Guatemala, 

scientists and ecotourists are working 

cooperatively with the ProPete ́n group 

to undertake conservation work at the 

Scarlet Macaw Biological Station in the 

Maya Biosphere Reserve (ProPeten 

2009, p. 1). While these activities differ 

with regard to specific details, in 

general they provide positive 

conservation benefits to the Morelet’s 

crocodile and demonstrate that 

ecotourism, as well as scientific 

research and wildlife conservation, can 

be compatible with respect to the 

species. 

Agriculture, Grazing, and Infrastructure 

Development 

Agriculture, grazing, and 

infrastructure development (such as 

dams, roads, residential areas, and 

irrigated fields) generally are indirect 

impacts in that the purpose of the action 

is not focused on the crocodile. These 

activities can be either consumptive (for 

example, destruction of nests and eggs 

by machinery) or nonconsumptive (for 

example, loss of access to traditional 

nesting or feeding sites), and are 

generally manifested through habitat 

loss or fragmentation. Depending on the 

nature and extent of these activities, 

they may have a substantial negative 

impact on local Morelet’s crocodile 

populations. Although agriculture, 

grazing, and infrastructure development 

are currently affecting local populations 

of Morelet’s crocodiles, and this is likely 

to continue in the foreseeable future, we 

do not have any evidence that these 

activities are currently or anticipated to 

be a range-wide threat to the Morelet’s 

crocodile. 

Summary of Factor A 

Although some habitat degradation 

has occurred in Mexico, this threat is 

ameliorated by the LGEEPA. This law 

has strict restrictions against land use 

changes in Mexico, especially for 

undisturbed habitat such as those areas 

used by the Morelet’s crocodile 

(CONABIO 2005, p. 25). The Sistema 

Nacional de A ́ reas Naturales Protegidas 

(SINANP) also provides significant 

habitat protection in Mexico. The 

SINANP created designated protected 

areas because these areas contain key or 

representative ecosystems or species, or 

ecosystems or species that are at risk 

and require strict control. In Mexico, at 

least 11 protected areas contain 

populations of the Morelet’s crocodile 

(CITES 2010a, pp. 17–20). In Belize, at 

least three protected areas contain 

Morelet’s crocodile populations 

(Meerman et al. 2003a, p. 45; Meerman 

et al. 2003b, p. 30; and Meerman et al. 

2004, pp. 30–31). Mexico and Belize 

contain the majority of all wild 

Morelet’s crocodiles (87 percent) and 

the majority of the potentially suitable 

habitat throughout the species’ range (81 

percent). We find that, although habitat 

destruction and modification is affecting 

individual crocodiles locally, the overall 

level of habitat protection in Mexico 

and Belize is currently adequate and we 

anticipate that it will remain so. 

Based on current information, 

Guatemala contains the remaining 13 

percent of the wild Morelet’s crocodiles 

and the remaining 19 percent of the 

potentially suitable habitat throughout 

the species’ range. Although the 

Morelet’s crocodile occupies at least two 

protected areas in Guatemala (Castan ̃ eda 

Moya et al. 2000, p. 63), one, the El 

Mirador-Rı ́o Azul National Park has no 

permanent human presence either in or 

surrounding the park and contains the 

last pristine rainforest in Guatemala 

which has experienced very little 

deforestation. The NGO community has 

partnered with the President of 

Guatemala to establish a coalition to 

ensure long-term protection of this 

important national park, while 

providing for sustainable economic 

incentives to the people of the MBR and 

of Guatemala. The second protected 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23659 

area, Laguna del Tigre National Park, 

has been affected by past human 

encroachment, fire, deforestation, 

grazing, and infrastructure 

development. Although these factors 

may have affected local populations of 

Morelet’s crocodiles, we have no 

evidence that it has affected the species 

range-wide. The government of 

Guatemala and the local and 

international NGO community have 

again partnered to address these issues 

through direct interventions; including 

local and international community in 

conservation efforts; and educating 

people on the use of best management 

practices. These efforts have resulted in 

a 90% reduction in fires in Laguna del 

Tigre National Park, and the successful 

interdiction of individuals conducting 

unlawful activities. 

Despite the localized impacts in all 

three countries, the current range-wide 

distribution of Morelet’s crocodile now 

closely resembles historical range-wide 

distribution. The species has existing 

available high quality habitat, healthy 

population distribution, is abundant at 

known sites and it is expanding into 

new sites. Even in the face of habitat 

alteration, this species has been shown 

to occupy disturbed habitat. There have 

been observed increases in the relative 

abundance of the species, and a total 

population size of approximately 19,400 

adults in the three range countries. 

Species experts now widely characterize 

Morelet’s crocodile populations as 

healthy. Although some local factors 

continue to affect the habitat for 

Morelet’s crocodile, we have no 

information to indicate that these local 

factors are of sufficient magnitude to 

have a range-wide impact on the species 

to the point that would cause the 

Morelet’s crocodile to meet the 

definition of either an endangered or a 

threatened species. Therefore, we find 

that the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range is not 

likely to threaten or endanger the 

Morelet’s crocodile in the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Commercial Harvest (Legal and Illegal 

Trade) 

The Morelet’s crocodile was included 

in Appendix I of CITES on July 1, 1975. 

Species included in Appendix I are 

species threatened with extinction that 

are or may be affected by trade. CITES 

prohibits international trade in 

specimens of these species unless the 

trade is found to be not detrimental to 

the survival of the species, the 

specimens in trade were legally 

acquired, and the purpose of the import 

is not for primarily commercial 

purposes or the specimen meets one of 

the exemptions established under the 

CITES Treaty. A more thorough 

explanation of CITES is found in the 

‘‘Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora’’ discussion under the section 

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms. 

Overexploitation for commercial 

purposes prior to 1970 is widely 

accepted as the primary cause of a 

drastic, range-wide population decline 

of Morelet’s crocodile (Platt and 

Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 21; CONABIO 

2005, p. 27). Historically, commercial 

overexploitation, through the harvest of 

adult animals from the wild, was a 

much greater threat to the Morelet’s 

crocodile than habitat loss. During the 

first half of the 20th century, hundreds 

of thousands of skins per year were 

marketed (CITES 2008, pp. 17, 20). The 

precise magnitude of the trade is 

unclear however, because trade data for 

the Morelet’s crocodile was recorded at 

a higher taxonomic level incorporating 

other crocodilians. See, for example, 

Loa Loza 1998a, pp. 134–135; ArroyoQuiroz et al. 2007, p. 933. It is reported 

that prior to 1975, hide dealers in Belize 

purchased up to 12,000 skins annually, 

and an unknown number of skins were 

exported illegally in contravention to 

Mexican law (Plat and Thorbjarnarson 

2000b, p. 21). Precise estimates of 

historical trade from Mexico or 

Guatemala were unavailable. Even now, 

the commercial market for designer 

fashion items made from high quality 

crocodile skins, such as leather belts, 

footwear, wallets, and handbags, is 

highly lucrative. For example, a single 

pair of shoes may retail for hundreds of 

dollars, a handbag for several thousand 

dollars, and a tote bag for tens of 

thousands of dollars. 

Legal Trade 

In 1997, the Government of Mexico 

established a system for registering, 

supervising, and enforcing Unidad de 

Manejo y Administracio ́n (UMAs; 

Conservation Management and 

Administrative Units) for intensive 

reproduction of economically valuable 

natural resources, including the captive 

breeding of Morelet’s crocodiles 

(CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, pp. 3–5). 

Commercial use of Morelet’s crocodiles 

in Mexico for domestic trade was 

strictly limited to animals raised in 

closed-cycle, captive-breeding 

operations regulated by the Government 

of Mexico under the UMA system. For 

international trade, commercial trade 

was restricted to animals raised in these 

closed-cycle, captive-breeding 

operations registered with the CITES 

Secretariat. In order for these closedcycle, captive-breeding operations to be 

successful, great care was given to 

satisfying the biological requirements of 

the species (Cremieux et al. 2005, p. 

417; Brien et al. 2007, pp. 1–26). 

According to Leo ́n Vela ́zquez (2004, p. 

52), there were approximately 30,000 

Morelet’s crocodiles in captive-breeding 

facilities in Mexico in 2004. There were 

38,449 Morelet’s crocodiles housed in 

19 Mexican closed-cycle captivebreeding operations in 2008 (CITES 

2010a, p. 24). Currently, the annual 

production of Morelet’s crocodiles in 

Mexican closed-cycle captive-breeding 

operations does not exceed 40,000 

individuals (CITES 2010a, p. 8). 

Under Mexican law, closed-cycle 

captive-breeding operations wishing to 

make their Morelet’s crocodiles 

available for commercial use must 

demonstrate that they are able to go 

beyond the F2 generation of 

reproducing individuals. This 

requirement supports the use of 

Morelet’s crocodiles that is compatible 

with conservation of the species by 

offsetting the demand for crocodiles 

taken from the wild. Such facilities 

produced a variety of items including 

skins/hides, meat, live individuals as 

pets, stuffed figurines, and leather 

products (fashion accessories) for both 

domestic and international trade. 

Based on CITES annual reports for the 

period 1996–2005, Caldwell (2007, pp. 

6–7) noted relatively low levels of 

international legal trade in products 

from Mexican captive-breeding 

operations during 1996–1999 (fewer 

than 200 skins/year), but higher levels 

during 2000–2005 (2,430 skins in 2001; 

1,591 skins in 2002; and below 1,000 

skins per year during the rest of the 

period). Japan has been the main 

importer of products from Mexican 

captive-breeding operations, with lesser 

quantities going to France, Italy, the 

Republic of Korea, and Spain (Caldwell 

2007, p. 6). 

The United Nations Environment 

Programme—World Conservation 

Monitoring Centre (UNEP–WCMC) 

manages a trade database on behalf of 

the CITES Secretariat. Each Party to 

CITES is responsible for compiling 

annual reports to the CITES Secretariat 

regarding their country’s trade in 

species protected under CITES. UNEP– 

WCMC enters the data from these 

annual reports into a trade database, 

which is used to analyze trade in CITES 

specimens. Due to the time needed to 

compile the data, the most recent year 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

for which comprehensive trade statistics 

are available is normally two years prior 

to the current year. 

In general, prior to 2010, international 

legal trade consisted of small quantities 

of unfinished hides/skins or finished 

leather products, exported primarily 

from Mexico to Japan and European 

countries, as well as biological 

specimens destined for research. These 

countries process the unfinished hides/ 

skins into leather products such as belts, 

footwear, wallets, and handbags that in 

turn are sold within their own country 

or re-exported for sale to other 

countries. Due to the listing status of the 

species under the Act, the United States 

cannot be a commercial destination for 

Morelet’s crocodile skins and products. 

It is currently illegal to import Morelet’s 

crocodile skins and products into the 

United States, unless the import is for 

scientific or enhancement purposes. 

In 2010, the Government of Mexico 

submitted a proposal to the 15th 

Meeting of the CITES Conference of the 

Parties (CoP15) to transfer the Morelet’s 

crocodile throughout its range to 

Appendix II of CITES with a zero quota 

for trade in wild specimens because the 

Government of Mexico concluded that 

the Morelet’s crocodile no longer met 

the criteria for inclusion in Appendix I 

(CITES 2010a, p. 1). Consistent with a 

request from Guatemala (CITES 2010a, 

Annex 4, page 25), the Government of 

Mexico amended their proposal by 

adding the words ‘‘for commercial 

purposes’’ after ‘‘with a zero quota for 

trade in wild specimens’’. In addition, 

the Government of Guatemala opposed 

the initial CITES proposal to downlist 

the species throughout its range based 

on the lack of knowledge of the 

population and population trends in 

Guatemala, threats to the species from 

deforestation and pollution in 

Guatemala, and the possibility of illegal, 

cross-border trade taking place from 

Guatemala. Because of Guatemala’s 

concerns, Mexico requested that the 

vote be split, with the Mexico and 

Belize populations considered 

separately from the Guatemala’s 

population. The proposal to downlist 

the Mexico and Belize populations to 

CITES Appendix II with a zero quota for 

wild specimens for commercial 

purposes was adopted by consensus. 

Mexico then withdrew its proposal to 

downlist the Guatemala population, 

leaving that population in CITES 

Appendix I. As a result, only Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Mexico and Belize were 

transferred to CITES Appendix II. 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Guatemala 

remain in CITES Appendix I (CITES 

2010b, p. 1). The new CITES 

designations became effective on June 

23, 2010. Please see the discussion in 

the Factor D section, Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, for 

additional information on the change in 

CITES designation for the Morelet’s 

crocodile. 

According to the 2010 CITES proposal 

to transfer the Morelet’s crocodile to 

Appendix II, the UNEP–WCMC CITES 

Trade Database showed that, until 2007, 

the parts and derivatives of the 

Morelet’s crocodile most commonly 

found in trade were skins, skin pieces 

and leather products, although other 

products include live specimens, eggs, 

bodies, scales, skulls and shoes were 

also traded. The largest exporter 

between 2001 and 2007 was Mexico 

(8,498 skins, 750 skin pieces and 1,193 

leather products), followed by Belize 

with 116 bodies, 766 eggs and 3,124 

specimens for scientific purposes 

(exported to the United States). The 

major importing countries were Japan 

(6,170 skins), United States (3,124 

specimens for scientific purposes), Italy 

(1,219 skins), the Republic of Korea (560 

skins), France (375 skins) and Spain 

(162 skins) (CITES 2010a, p. 8). 

According to the CITES (CITES 2010a) 

proposal to transfer the Morelet’s 

crocodile to Appendix II, the national 

harvest of animals from closed-cycle 

operations authorized in Mexico 

amounts to fewer than 2,000 skins per 

year since the year 2000. In the period 

between 2000 and 2009, 119 CITES 

export permits were issued in Mexico 

for a total of 12,276 Morelet’s crocodile 

skins. However, the total potential 

production from closed-cycle captivebreeding operations was about 16,500 

individuals and approximately 10,000 

skins per year (CITES 2010a, p. 7). 

We examined the information on 

Mexico’s closed-cycle, captive breeding 

operations in Annex 3 of the 2010 

CITES proposal. According to the 

information provided in the Annex, 

there were 19 closed-cycle captivebreeding operations registered as UMAs 

for the Morelet’s crocodile in Mexico. 

Only four of the 19 UMAs had a captive 

population sufficient to support 

commercial trade, and only two of these 

four could support international 

commercial trade—both of which were 

registered with CITES. As of 2008, the 

captive population in these four UMAs 

ranged from 1,237 to 28,673 individuals. 

The two UMAs that were not registered 

with CITES had the potential to produce 

1,100 skins per year for local 

commercial trade (CITES 2010a, Annex 

3, p. 24). The population levels for the 

remaining 15 UMAs were relatively low 

by comparison, ranging from six to 576 

individuals. Rather than supporting 

commercial trade, four of the remaining 

15 UMAs supported exhibition, seven 

had no commercial production, three 

contributed to the economic support of 

the local community, and one was used 

for research. 

Three of these 19 Mexican captivebreeding operations were also registered 

with CITES, and could therefore 

commercially trade Morelet’s crocodile 

products internationally, as well as 

domestically while the species was 

listed under Appendix I. However, one 

of these CITES-registered captive 

breeding operations contains only six 

individuals, and is used for exhibition 

purposes. Only two of the three CITESregistered captive breeding operations 

commercially produce enough Morelet’s 

crocodile skins with the annual 

production potential for international 

trade. These two captive breeding 

operations have the potential to produce 

an estimated 2,500 skins annually for 

international trade (CITES 2010a, pp. 7 

and 24, Annex 3). Please see the 

discussion in the Factor D section, 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms, for additional information 

on the three CITES-registered captive 

breeding operations. 

There are no captive-breeding 

facilities in Belize or Guatemala that are 

providing specimens or skins for trade, 

either domestically or internationally 

under the CITES captive-breeding 

exception (CITES 2010c). In Belize, 

Morelet’s crocodiles are officially 

protected from commercial harvest. 

Platt and Thorbjarnarson (2000b) found 

no evidence of commercial poaching of 

Morelet’s crocodiles for skins or meat in 

Belize (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, 

p. 27). Reportedly, the species is not 

subject to commercial activities in 

Guatemala given that Guatemala’s 

Comisio ́n Nacional de A ́ reas Protegidas 

(CONAP; National Commission on 

Protected Areas, also known as the 

Guatemalan National Park Service) 

prohibits the export and trade in wild 

specimens of endangered species 

(CITES 2010a, p. 7). 

Illegal Trade 

According to the 2010 CITES proposal 

to transfer the Morelet’s crocodile to 

Appendix II, the UNEP–WCMC CITES 

Trade Database showed few illegal 

movements of parts and derivatives of 

the Morelet’s crocodile between 1975 

and 2007 from Mexico, Guatemala, and 

Belize, with the United States as the 

only destination. This suggests that 

there is a very low level of illegal trade 

and that it is only with the United 

States; however, enforcement actions 

are not a required field for CITES 

Annual Reports. Unlike the United 

States, most countries do not specify the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23661 

action taken on imports. Thus, the fact 

that illegal trade to the United States is 

documented in the WCMC database 

does not mean that this is the only 

illegal trade in the species. That said, 

between 1982 and 2005, items found to 

have been ‘‘illegally’’ imported to the 

United States from Mexico were mainly 

leather products (308) and shoes (419 

pairs). It is quite possible that these U.S. 

imports derived from legal operations in 

Mexico, but were precluded from 

import into the U.S. because of the 

Morelet’s crocodile’s endangered status 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Considering the same caveats 

pertaining to WCMC data, there were 

eight records illegal trade occurring 

from Guatemala (between 1989 and 

1997), mainly involving pairs of shoes 

(27), and one case in Belize, which 

involved the export of 31 eggs in 1995. 

Regarding Guatemala, Castan ̃ eda-Moya 

(1998) stated that illegal capture of the 

species continued in the Pete ́n region in 

that year. However, he admitted that the 

volume of such activity had decreased 

compared to the situation 25 years 

before (CITES 2010a, p. 8). 

Recent data available on illegal trade 

in the Morelet’s crocodile between 1975 

and 2007 showed that the United States 

reported illegal imports (UNEP–WCMC 

CITES Trade Database 2010a). The data 

on illegal imports are based on the 

numbers of items that were seized and 

confiscated by law enforcement 

personnel in both the United States and 

in other countries. This information is 

not included in CITES annual reports 

for each country; the United States is 

the exception. The majority of the illegal 

Morelet’s crocodile parts and 

derivatives confiscated upon arrival into 

the United States between 1975 and 

2007 came from Mexico (20 skins, 28 

handbags, 243 leather items, 419 pairs 

of shoes, 3 watch straps, 9 bodies, 10 

garments, 2 live animals, and 65 small 

leather products). Again, these items 

could have come from legal operations 

in Mexico, but were a violation at the 

time under the Act due to the Morelet’s 

crocodile’s endangered status. A 

significantly smaller number of illegal 

items originated from Guatemala (1 

skin, 2 handbags, 1 leather item, 27 

pairs of shoes, and 1 body) and Belize 

(31 eggs). The majority of the illegal 

trade reportedly began in 1985, but 

began to decline steadily starting in 

2000. Between 2005 and 2007, there 

were only several reported illegal 

imports of Morelet’s crocodile into the 

United States, and these were small 

leather products from Mexico (UNEP– 

WCMC CITES Trade Database 2010b). 

The Government of Mexico’s Federal 

Prosecutor for Environmental Protection 

(PROFEPA) has investigated illegal 

trade in live animals, presumably for the 

pet trade. A potential illegal market in 

live animals is under analysis, and 

would be expected to involve the 

Mexican cities of Guadalajara, 

Monterrey, and Mexico City (Mexico 

2006, p. 41). Illegal harvest or killing of 

individuals perceived as threats to 

humans or livestock cannot be 

completely precluded, but enforcement 

of controls on domestic and 

international trade severely limit any 

commercial incentives. PROFEPA 

performs inspections to prevent 

laundering of wild Morelet’s crocodile 

specimens and other illegal activities. 

There was a declining trend in seizures 

of illegal specimens and products 

during 1998–2007. According to Mexico 

(Mexico 2006, pp. 39–42), 85 specimens 

were confiscated in 2003, two in 2004, 

80 in 2005, and 14 in 2006 (partial 

results). In addition and according to 

Paola Mosig, Program officer for the 

TRAFFIC World Wildlife Fund in 

Mexico, 20 seizures with a total of 48 

live specimens, as well as 25 belts and 

two wallets were confiscated in 2007 

(Mosig 2008, pers. comm.) According to 

TRAFFIC, the Wildlife Trade 

Monitoring Network, these seizures are 

indicative of a strong enforcement 

program that deters illegal trade (Mosig 

2008, pers. comm.). 

Current Trade 

In accordance with Article II, 

paragraph 2(a) of CITES, and CITES 

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev CoP14) 

Annex 1, the Government of Mexico 

submitted a proposal (CoP15 Prop.8) to 

the CoP15 to transfer the Morelet’s 

crocodile throughout its range to 

Appendix II of CITES with an 

annotation requiring a zero quota for 

wild specimens that was further 

amended by adding the phrase, ‘‘for 

commercial purposes’’ (CITES 2010a, p. 

1). The Government of Guatemala 

opposed Mexico’s CITES proposal as it 

pertains to the species in Guatemala, 

based on the limited knowledge of the 

population and population trends in 

Guatemala; the threats to the species 

from deforestation and pollution in 

Guatemala; and the possibilities of 

illegal, cross-border trade taking place 

from Guatemala to Mexico. As a result, 

the parties to CITES agreed that 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico and 

Belize should be transferred to CITES 

Appendix II but that Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Guatemala remain in 

CITES Appendix I. (CITES 2010b, p. 2). 

The change in CITES status for 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico and 

Belize became effective on June 23, 

2010. Because of the zero quota 

annotation, transferring the Morelet’s 

crocodile to CITES Appendix II 

precludes the trade of wild specimens 

for commercial purposes and therefore 

should not create additional pressure on 

wild populations in any of the range 

states, as long as enforcement remains 

effective. As such, international 

commercial trade in Morelet’s 

crocodiles under CITES is currently 

limited to individuals from captivebreeding operations only. However, 

once the Appendix-II status went into 

effect for Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico 

and Belize, international trade of 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico and 

Belize under CITES was no longer 

limited to facilities that are registered 

with the CITES Secretariat pursuant to 

the resolution on registration of 

operations that breed Appendix-I 

animal species for commercial purposes 

(Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15)). 

According to the Government of 

Mexico’s 2010 CITES proposal, the 

current level of international trade in 

the Morelet’s crocodile is around 8,600 

individuals in 10 years (an average of 

860 individuals per year). The Morelet’s 

crocodile represents only a small 

fraction of the global trade in 

crocodilians, far behind the market 

leaders: brown spectacled caiman 

(Caiman crocodilus fuscus), American 

alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), 

and Nile crocodile (Crocodilus 

niloticus). Current trends in 

international trade do not indicate a 

threat to the Morelet’s crocodile in the 

wild (CITES 2010a, p. 8). In addition, 

the Government of Mexico’s proposal to 

move the Morelet’s crocodile to CITES 

Appendix II allows only individuals 

from sources other than wild 

populations to be exported and this 

provision remains in effect with the zero 

quota for wild specimens traded for 

commercial purposes. The risk of 

laundering of wild specimens through 

farms is very low, because the quality of 

skins produced in captivity is much 

higher than wild-caught skins, and 

demand in international trade focuses 

on high quality skins (CITES 2010a, pp. 

8, 23). It should be noted that there are 

a number of CITES-recognized 

production methods that are not ‘‘wild’’ 

and not ‘‘bred in captivity.’’ Mexico or 

any other country is free to propose a 

change to the annotation at the next CoP 

removing this limitation. However, 

there is no indication at this time that 

a change is imminent. 

To see if our results would be 

comparable to Mexico’s assessment, we 

queried the UNEP–WCMC CITES Trade 

Database for the number of Morelet’s 

crocodile skins legally exported 

between 1998 and 2008 and found 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

similar results for the current level of 

legal trade cited above by the 

Government of Mexico. According to 

the UNEP–WCMC CITES Trade 

Database, Mexico exported 8,780 skins 

between 1998 and 2008, an average of 

878 skins per year (UNEP–WCMC 

CITES Trade Database 2010b). Two of 

the previously CITES-registered captive 

breeding operations in Mexico have the 

potential to produce 2,500 skins per 

year for international trade (CITES 

2010a, Annex 3, p. 24), which is more 

than adequate to meet the current 

demand for legal trade of less than 900 

skins per year. If this proposed rule is 

finalized, then Morelet’s crocodile 

products would be able to be imported 

into the United States and the demand 

for international trade may increase. 

However, we do not believe this 

potential increase in international trade 

is likely to threaten or endanger wild 

Morelet’s crocodiles due to the adequate 

supply of captive-bred individuals in 

Mexico available for legal international 

commercial trade under CITES. 

Besides CITES and the Act, no other 

international measures control the 

cross-border movement of the Morelet’s 

crocodile (CITES 2010a, p. 10). If this 

proposed rule is finalized and the 

prohibitions of the Act are removed, 

then Morelet’s crocodile parts and 

products could be imported into the 

United States for commercial purposes, 

provided they do not originate in 

Guatemala. However, cross-border 

movement of the Morelet’s crocodile 

throughout its range would still be 

regulated through CITES (Appendix II 

for Mexico and Belize; Appendix I in 

Guatemala). 

Subsistence Harvest 

The overharvest for commercial 

purposes, rather than subsistence 

harvest, was the primary reason for the 

Morelet’s crocodile listing under the Act 

and under CITES. Although subsistence 

harvest has historically had an impact 

on some local populations of Morelet’s 

crocodiles, these impacts have 

diminished over time and do not 

currently have a significant impact on 

the species as a whole. 

Indigenous cultures in Mexico, Belize, 

and Guatemala have a long history of 

using the Morelet’s crocodile for 

subsistence and cultural purposes 

(Maimone Celorio et al. 2006, pp. 40– 

43; Zamudio 2006, pp. 5–8; Me ́ndezCabrera and Montiel 2007, p. 132). 

Historically, the Maya Indians in 

Mexico consumed small quantities of 

the eggs and meat of the Morelet’s 

crocodile (Maimone Celorio et al. 2006, 

pp. 40–43; Zamudio 2006, pp. 5–8; 

Me ́ndez-Cabrera and Montiel 2007, p. 

132). Hunting and harvest techniques 

were based on traditional knowledge by 

these people of the behavior and 

ecology of the Morelet’s crocodile 

(Ceden ̃ o-Va ́zquez and Zamudio Acedo 

2005, pp. 8–9). More recently (1965– 

1980), and in response to a demand by 

outside buyers/businessmen, Maya 

hunters harvested large quantities of 

hides for commercial purposes, but that 

activity now has largely been 

discontinued (Zamudio et al. 2004, p. 

344). 

Indigenous and nonindigenous people 

in Belize, generally poor farmers, also 

engaged in large-scale, commercial 

harvest of hides during the previous 

century, but that practice was primarily 

based on economic instead of cultural 

reasons (Hope and Abercrombie 1986, p. 

146). Abercrombie et al. (1982, p. 19) 

made a distinction between master 

hunters in Belize, generally older men 

who made extensive forays into the 

forest in search of specific game species, 

and part-time hunters, generally 

younger men who made short-term, 

opportunistic outings and often 

harvested Morelet’s crocodiles. Among 

other uses, the Morelet’s crocodile also 

has important roles in indigenous art, 

medicine, and religion (Stocker and 

Armsey, 1980, p. 740; Cupul-Magan ̃ a 

2003, pp. 45–48), and is used locally for 

handicrafts, jewelry, decorations, and 

curios (BERDS 2005a, p. 1). 

Meerman et al. (2003a, p. 49) noted a 

relative scarcity of fish and fish 

predators such as crocodiles in the 

Sarstoon Temash National Park in 

Belize. They suspected that fish 

populations are depressed, and that 

over-fishing by humans must play a 

role. People engaged in fishing along the 

Upper Temash River also annually 

collect Morelet’s crocodile eggs from 

nests located along water channels for 

human consumption. In some years, one 

or more nests escape discovery so the 

eggs are not collected. As a result, baby 

crocodiles are subsequently seen that 

year. Heavy fishing also reduces the 

potential prey base for the Morelet’s 

crocodile. The heavy predation on eggs 

together with the depletion of the 

Morelet’s crocodile’s prey base may be 

responsible for the low crocodile count 

along the river (Meerman et al. 2003a, 

pp. 42, 45). 

Castan ̃ eda Moya (1998a, p. 521; 

1998b, p. 13) listed illegal hunting as a 

threat to Morelet’s crocodile in the 

Pete ́n region of Guatemala, but did not 

provide a numerical estimate of the 

take. ARCAS, an animal welfare group 

in Guatemala, reported the rescue or 

recovery of 49 live individuals (about 8 

per year), most likely from pet dealers 

or private individuals, during the period 

2002–2007 (ARCAS 2002, p. 3; 2003, p. 

2; 2004, p. 2; 2005, p. 2; 2006, p. 3; 

2007, p. 3). We do not have any 

information describing the effect of 

these threats on the status of wild 

populations in Guatemala. 

Although subsistence harvest 

continues to affect negatively some local 

populations of the Morelet’s crocodile, 

the impacts appear to be very small. We 

have no evidence that subsistence 

harvest is currently or anticipated to 

affect significantly the Morelet’s 

crocodile throughout its range. The 

current range-wide distribution of the 

Morelet’s crocodile closely mirrors the 

historical range-wide distribution, with 

a total population size of approximately 

19,400 adults in the three range 

countries. 

Scientific Research 

Scientific research in and of itself also 

constitutes a use of the Morelet’s 

crocodile. Research in the three range 

countries has mainly focused on field 

surveys for the occurrence of the 

species, relative to abundance and 

habitat quality, which do not require 

removal of specimens. Research 

protocols followed so far have been 

those accepted worldwide and do not 

involve significant alteration of habitat 

or behavior (CITES 2010a, p. 7). Several 

scientific research projects on the 

Morelet’s crocodile have focused on 

field surveys that involve capture, 

handling, or invasive techniques to 

identify, for example, the species, sex, 

or size class of the specimen, as well as 

to collect biological specimens or to 

attach an identification tag. If conducted 

according to standard protocols, these 

physical activities pose little risk of 

injury or disturbance to the subject 

crocodiles. Several studies have also 

entailed, for example, night surveys 

using bright spotlights (Castan ̃ eda Moya 

et al. 2000, p. 62), stomach flushing 

(Platt et al. 2006, p. 282), collection of 

small blood samples (Dever et al. 2002, 

p. 1079), or the gathering of nonviable 

eggs from nests for contaminants 

analyses (Rainwater et al. 2002a, p. 

320). None of these studies has cited 

any negative effects due to handling or 

observation on the Morelet’s crocodile 

populations. 

All three range countries regulate 

scientific research and collection. 

According to the UNEP–WCMC CITES 

Trade Database, 3,124 specimens were 

exported for scientific purposes from 

Mexico to the United States. From an 

administrative standpoint, a permit at 

the state or Federal level regulates the 

collection of biological samples for 

scientific purposes in Mexico. In 

Mexico, the Mexican Endangered 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23663 

Species List (NOM–126–SEMARNAT– 

2000) regulates the collection of 

biological samples from wild species for 

scientific use. In addition, the 

Governments of Belize and Guatemala 

regulate scientific collection and 

research. In Belize, this type of export 

is subject to strict protocols and 

provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act 

(CITES 2010a, p. 7). 

With the Appendix-II designation for 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico and 

Belize, individuals or institutions 

wishing to import scientific samples 

originating from those countries will no 

longer be required to obtain a CITES 

import permit. However, the CITES 

import permit requirement would still 

be in effect for Guatemala and CITES 

export permits or re-export certificates, 

regardless of the country of origin, 

would be required. The elimination of 

import permits, while continuing the 

CITES requirement for export permits 

and re-export certificates, may result in 

additional scientific collecting and 

research to benefit the species while 

ensuring that adequate protections for 

the species remain in place (see the 

Factor D section, Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms, below). 

In conclusion, we are not aware of 

any evidence that utilization of the 

Morelet’s crocodile for scientific 

research purposes poses anything more 

than a low risk to the subject 

individuals; furthermore, risks at the 

population level are probably negligible. 

To the contrary, these studies (surveys 

and sampling) provide useful 

information essential to monitoring the 

status and continued health of 

individuals as well as populations. 

These studies also allow ecotourists in 

these countries to work with the 

scientific community in the collection 

of Morelet’s crocodile data (Volunteers 

for International Partnership 2009, pp. 

1–4.) This provides ecotourists with an 

opportunity to observe the Morelet’s 

crocodile in its native habitat and to 

gain firsthand knowledge about the 

conservation threats that the species is 

facing. 

Ranching 

Although the Belize-GuatemalaMexico Tri-national Strategy for the 

Conservation and Sustainable Use of 

Morelet’s Crocodile (see the PostDelisting Monitoring section, below) 

includes long-term plans for ranching, 

none of the range countries have given 

any indication they plan to ranch 

Morelet’s crocodiles within the 

foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor B 

Thus, while uncontrolled commercial 

harvests nearly extirpated the Morelet’s 

crocodile, the species has largely 

recovered because of being protected 

under CITES and the Act in the early 

1970s, as well as the implementation of 

CITES trade controls by all three range 

countries. All of the range countries 

currently continue to prohibit harvest of 

wild Morelet’s crocodiles. 

Illegal international and domestic 

trade still occurs, but levels remain low. 

Any incidence of illegal killing that may 

have occurred has not prevented the 

observed population increase of the 

species. The potential remains for illegal 

cross-border trade, as well as the 

laundering of wild specimens through 

existing captive-breeding operations in 

Mexico, but enforcement in Mexico is 

relatively strict. Given the increased 

effectiveness of law enforcement 

personnel with regard to the 

implementation of CITES, the increased 

supply of captive-bred Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Mexico that are now 

available for commercial trade as a 

result of the Morelet’s crocodile’s 

transfer to CITES Appendix II, and the 

increasing awareness of these 

regulations by the public, we anticipate 

that illegal trade in wild Morelet’s 

crocodiles will decrease in the majority 

of the species’ range in the foreseeable 

future. 

The Government of Mexico’s Federal 

Prosecutor for Environmental Protection 

(PROFEPA) performs inspections to 

prevent laundering of wild Morelet’s 

crocodile specimens and other illegal 

activities. In Belize, the importation and 

exportation of wildlife requires a permit 

and is subject to strict protocols and 

provisions of the Wildlife Protection 

Act, Hunting of Scheduled species for 

scientific or educational purposes in 

Belize also requires a permit. There was 

a declining trend in seizures of illegal 

specimens and products from 1998– 

2007. According to TRAFFIC, these 

seizures are indicative of a strong 

enforcement program that deters illegal 

trade (Mosig 2008, pers. comm.). 

Other uses such as scientific research 

are either benign or involve relatively 

small numbers of Morelet’s crocodiles. 

In addition and given the steps that the 

Government of Mexico is taking 

internally to promote the sustainable 

commercial use of Morelet’s crocodiles, 

we anticipate that commercial uses will 

increase in the foreseeable future, 

especially in Mexico, but that captivebred specimens will be used instead of 

wild individuals. 

In conclusion, we find that the 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is not a significant factor 

affecting the Morelet’s crocodile 

throughout its range, both now and for 

the foreseeable future. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Inter-specific interactions, namely 

disease and predation, can have 

significant impacts on the conservation 

status of a species. At the time the 

petition was submitted, disease was not 

considered a significant conservation 

threat to the Morelet’s crocodile. 

However, the West Nile Virus (WNV) 

has been detected in several Mexican 

populations of the Morelet’s crocodile. 

According to Farfa ́n-Ale et al. (2006, pp. 

910–911), six specimens tested negative 

to the WNV at the Me ́rida Zoo, Yucatan 

State, Mexico, during 2003–2004, while 

six of seven specimens tested positive to 

the WNV at Ciudad del Carmen, 

Campeche State, Mexico, in 2004. All 

crocodiles, including those not sampled, 

showed no signs of illness at the time 

of the testing or during the 3 months 

that followed (Farfa ́n-Ale et al. (2006, p. 

911). 

In a separate survey conducted during 

May–October 2005, Hidalgo-Martı ́nez et 

al. (2008, p. 80) detected the WNV in six 

of seven Morelet’s crocodiles at 

Zoolo ́gico La Venta, Villahermosa, 

Tabasco State, Mexico. All animals were 

healthy at the time of serum collection, 

and none had a history of WNV-like 

illness. The presence of WNV antibodies 

in animals from those zoos 

demonstrated the presence of WNV in 

those regions and indicated a potential 

risk of infection in animals. The 

magnitude of that potential risk, 

however, has not been determined. West 

Nile Virus was responsible for a 

significant number of deaths of farmed 

American alligators in the U.S. State of 

Georgia during separate outbreaks in 

2001 and 2002 (Farfa ́n-Ale et al. 2006, 

p. 908). However, we do not have any 

information to indicate that WNV 

causes illness in the Morelet’s crocodile. 

The sample sizes in the above studies 

on Morelet’s crocodile were small, so 

much larger studies are needed. 

However, the best available information 

does not suggest that WNV is a threat or 

likely to become a threat. 

Predation on Morelet’s crocodile eggs 

and juveniles is a common natural 

phenomenon, posing no risk to healthy 

populations. They are preyed upon 

more frequently at the juvenile stage by 

many birds and medium-sized 

mammals (CITES 2010a, p. 4). Larger 

juveniles and subadults are less 

susceptible than small juveniles are to 

predation, and only large carnivores 

such as jaguars (Panthera onca) 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(Navarro Serment 2004, p. 57) pose a 

risk to adult crocodiles. Larger Morelet’s 

crocodiles may prey upon the juveniles 

of their species. However, this tends to 

act as an early factor promoting 

population regulation and adult 

spacing. Aggressive interactions among 

adults seem to be reduced by this 

mechanism, especially in populations 

with too many adults. In populations 

with a steady state of age distribution, 

cannibalism usually remains at a 

minimum (CONABIO 2005, p. 29). We 

are unaware of any unnatural rates of 

predation affecting any age class of 

Morelet’s crocodile, and we have no 

indication that predation will 

exacerbate other threats to the species in 

the future. 

Other interspecific interactions can 

also affect the conservation status of a 

species. The Morelet’s crocodile and the 

American crocodile co-occur and may 

compete with each other for resources 

along the freshwater-saltwater interface 

in coastal Mexico and Belize. Platt and 

Thorbjarnarson (2000a, p. 16; 2000b, pp. 

24–26) reported relatively higher 

frequency of encounter rates for the 

Morelet’s crocodile at alluvial and 

nonalluvial lagoons, mangrove forest, 

and rivers and creeks, collectively 

characterized as inland sites, while the 

American crocodile was relatively more 

abundant in offshore cays and the 

Turneffe Atoll. These differences were 

attributed to the smaller body size of the 

Morelet’s crocodile, as well as past 

exploitation patterns by hunters and 

subsequent niche expansion by this 

species (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 

2000b, p. 26). There was no indication, 

however, that interspecific competition 

between the Morelet’s and the American 

crocodiles was a serious conservation 

problem. 

Parasites have been also reported for 

the Morelet’s crocodile, but have not 

been identified as a conservation threat. 

In Mexico, trematodes (parasitic 

flatworms commonly called flukes) and 

nematodes (unsegmented worms 

commonly called roundworms) have 

been reported (Moravec and VargasVa ́zquez 1998, p. 499; Moravec 2001, p. 

47) from the Yucatan Peninsula, but 

health problems with the crocodile 

hosts were not noted. Rainwater et al. 

(2001a, p. 836) reported ticks 

(Amblyomma dissimile and 

Amblyomma sp.), but noted that 

parasitism by ticks on the Morelet’s 

crocodile was rare in Belize and 

elsewhere. 

Padilla Paz (2008, p. vi) characterized 

hematology, body index, and external 

injuries for 103 Morelet’s crocodiles 

from the northern wetlands of 

Campeche State, Mexico. These 

variables were used to characterize the 

health of the animals. Captive Morelet’s 

crocodiles evaluated for that study 

presented significantly more injuries 

than did wild individuals. Parasitism 

with nematodes (Paratrichosoma 

recurvum) was greater in wild 

crocodiles than in captive individuals. 

No serious health issues were identified 

in individuals in either group (Padilla 

Paz 2008, pp. 67–68). 

Individual Morelet’s crocodiles can 

also have physical issues that can affect 

their well-being. Rainwater et al. 

(2001b, pp. 125–127) reported two 

individuals among 642 Morelet’s 

crocodiles captured in Belize with a 

missing forelimb. Known in the 

technical literature as ectromelia, this 

condition was probably the result of 

congenital defects and not due to an 

injury. Both individuals otherwise 

appeared to be in good condition. 

Summary of Factor C 

While the full impact of the WNV on 

the Morelet’s crocodile has yet to be 

determined, there is no indication at 

present that WNV poses a threat to the 

species, and other interspecific 

interactions do not appear to be 

adversely affecting the Morelet’s 

crocodile. In conclusion, we find that 

disease or predation is not a significant 

factor affecting the Morelet’s crocodile 

throughout its range, both now and for 

the foreseeable future. 

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora 

The Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES, the 

Convention, or Treaty) is an 

international agreement between 

member governments to ensure that the 

international trade in plants and 

wildlife does not threaten the species’ 

survival. It provides varying degrees of 

protection to more than 30,000 species 

of animals and plants, whether they are 

traded as live specimens, parts or 

products. Countries that have agreed to 

be bound by the Convention (that have 

‘‘joined’’ CITES) are known as Parties. 

Although CITES is legally binding on 

the Parties, it does not take the place of 

national laws. Rather, it provides a 

framework to be respected by each 

Party, which has to adopt its own 

domestic legislation to ensure that 

CITES is implemented at the national 

level. For many years, CITES has been 

among the international conservation 

agreements with the largest 

membership, with now 175 Parties 

(http://www.CITES.org). 

CITES works by subjecting 

international trade in specimens of 

selected species to certain controls. 

Trade includes any movement into or 

out of a country and is not limited to 

commercial movement. All import, 

export, re-export, and ‘‘introduction 

from the sea’’ of species covered by the 

Convention have to be authorized 

through a permitting system. The 

species covered by CITES are listed in 

three Appendices, according to the 

degree of protection they need (CITES 

2009c). 

Appendix I include species 

threatened with extinction that are or 

may be affected by trade. Trade in 

specimens of these species is permitted 

only in exceptional circumstances. 

Appendix II includes species not 

necessarily threatened with extinction, 

but in which trade must be controlled 

in order to avoid utilization 

incompatible with their survival. 

Appendix III includes species that have 

been unilaterally listed by a Party to 

assist in the implementation of the 

listing Party’s national legislation to 

conserve and monitor trade in the listed 

species. The Conference of the Parties 

(CoP), which is the decision-making 

body of the Convention and comprises 

all its member countries, has agreed on 

a set of biological and trade criteria to 

help determine whether a species 

should be included in Appendices I or 

II (Since Appendix-III listings are a 

unilateral decision, Parties do not need 

to abide by the same biological and 

trade criteria adopted by the Parties.). At 

each regular meeting of the CoP, Parties 

submit proposals based on those criteria 

to amend these two Appendices to add, 

remove, or reclassify species (such as 

the Government of Mexico’s 2010 

proposal to transfer the Morelet’s 

crocodile from Appendix I to Appendix 

II). Parties discuss these amendment 

proposals during the CoP, and then they 

are submitted for adoption by the 

Parties (http://www.cites.org). 

A specimen of a CITES-listed species 

may be imported into or exported (or reexported) from a Party only if the 

appropriate permit or certificate has 

been obtained prior to the international 

trade and presented for clearance at the 

port of entry or exit. 

Regulation of Trade in Appendix-I 

Specimens 

Both an export permit or re-export 

certificate must be issued by the country 

of export and an import permit from the 

country of import must be obtained 

prior to international trade for 

Appendix-I species. An export permit 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23665 

may only be issued if the country of 

export determines that the export will 

not be detrimental to the survival of the 

species, the specimen was legally 

obtained according to the animal and 

plant protection laws in the country of 

export, live animals or plants are 

prepared and shipped for export to 

minimize any risk of injury, damage to 

health, or cruel treatment, and an 

import permit has been granted by the 

importing country. Likewise, the 

requirements for a re-export certificate 

are that the country of re-export 

determines that the specimen was 

imported into their country in 

accordance with CITES, that live 

animals or plants are prepared and 

shipped for re-export to minimize any 

risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel 

treatment, and an import permit has 

been granted. 

Issuance of import permits for 

Appendix-I species will also need a 

determination from the country of 

import that the import will not be for 

purposes that are detrimental to the 

survival of the species, the proposed 

recipient of live animals or plants is 

suitably equipped to house and care for 

them, and the purpose of the import is 

not for primarily commercial purposes. 

Thus, with few exceptions, Appendix-I 

species cannot be traded for commercial 

purposes. 

Regulation of Trade in Appendix-II 

Specimens 

In contrast to the trade requirements 

for an Appendix-I species, CITES does 

not require an import permit from the 

destination country as a condition for 

the export and re-export of an 

Appendix-II species, unless it is 

required by the destination country’s 

national law. However, an export permit 

or re-export certificate is required from 

the exporting country prior to the 

international trade taking place. An 

export permit may only be issued for 

Appendix-II species if the country of 

export determines that: (1) The export 

will not be detrimental to the survival 

of the species; (2) the specimen was 

legally obtained according to the animal 

and plant protection laws in the country 

of export; and (3) live animals or plants 

are prepared and shipped for export to 

minimize any risk of injury, damage to 

health, or cruel treatment. 

A re-export certificate may only be 

issued for Appendix-II species if the 

country of re-export determines that: (1) 

The specimen was imported into their 

country in accordance with CITES and 

(2) live animals or plants are prepared 

and shipped for re-export to minimize 

any risk of injury, damage to health, or 

cruel treatment. 

Parties to CITES are required to 

monitor both the export permits granted 

and the actual exports for Appendix II 

species. If a Party determines that the 

export of an Appendix-II species should 

be limited in order to maintain that 

species throughout its range at a level 

consistent with its role in the 

ecosystems in which it occurs and well 

above the level at which the species 

might become eligible for inclusion as 

an Appendix-I species, then that Party 

must take suitable measures to limit the 

number of export permits granted for 

that species (CITES article IV, paragraph 

3). 

CITES Registered Captive-Breeding 

Operations 

Prior to the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Mexico and Belize being downlisted to 

Appendix II, it could be treated as an 

Appendix II species and internationally 

traded commercially only if the 

specimen originated from a captivebreeding operation registered with the 

CITES Secretariat in accordance with 

CITES Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. 

CoP15) ‘‘Guidelines for a procedure to 

register and monitor operations that 

breed Appendix-I animal species for 

commercial purposes.’’ These captivebreeding operations may only be 

registered if specimens produced by that 

operation qualify as ‘bred in captivity’ 

according to the provisions of 

Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.). To qualify 

as bred in captivity, specimens must be 

born in a controlled environment where 

the parents mated. In addition, breeding 

stock must be established in accordance 

with the provisions of CITES and 

relevant national laws and in a manner 

not detrimental to the survival of the 

species in the wild. Breeding stock must 

also be maintained without the 

introduction of specimens from the 

wild, except for the occasional addition 

of animals, eggs or gametes meeting 

certain requirements. The breeding 

stock must have produced offspring of 

second generation (F2) in a controlled 

environment or be able to demonstrate 

that it is capable of reliably producing 

second-generation offspring in a 

controlled environment. Resolution 

Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) defines the 

term ‘‘bred in captivity for commercial 

purposes’’ as ‘‘any specimen of an 

animal bred to obtain economic benefit, 

including profit, whether in cash or 

kind where the purpose is directed 

toward sale, exchange, or provision of a 

service or any other form of economic 

use or benefit’’. Countries operating 

CITES-registered operations must 

ensure that the operation ‘‘will make a 

continuing meaningful contribution 

according to the conservation needs of 

the species’’ (CITES 2007b, pp. 1–2). 

Under the exception in the Treaty and 

Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), 

specimens of Appendix-I species 

originating from CITES-registered 

captive-breeding operations can be 

traded for commercial purposes, and 

shipments only need to be accompanied 

by an export permit issued by the 

exporting country. The importer is not 

required to obtain an import permit 

because these specimens are treated as 

CITES Appendix II. Countries that are 

Parties to CITES should restrict their 

imports of Appendix-I captive-bred 

specimens to those coming only from 

CITES-registered operations. Additional 

information on CITES-registered 

operations can be found on the CITES 

Web site at http://www.cites.org/eng/ 

resources/registers.shtml. 

Prior to the downlisting of the species 

in Mexico and Belize, three CITESregistered operations for Morelet’s 

crocodiles were located in Mexico. 

These facilities, while no longer 

registered with the CITES Secretariat, 

are still in operation (CITES 2010a, p. 

24, Annex 3). The names of these 

operations are: 

(1) Cocodrilos Mexicanos (established 

in 1989; (former) registration number A– 

MX–501) in Culiacan, Sinaloa State. In 

2008, this operation contained 28,673 

captive Morelet’s crocodiles for 

commercial production (CITES 2010a, 

p. 24, Annex 3). 

(2) Industrias Moreletii (established in 

1993; (former) registration number A– 

MX–502) in Villahermosa, Tabasco 

State. In 2008, this operation contained 

1,237 captive Morelet’s crocodiles for 

commercial production (CITES 2010a, 

p. 24, Annex 3). 

(3) Cocodrilos de Chiapas (established 

in 1989; (former) registration number A– 

MX–503) in Tapachula, Chiapas State. 

In 2008, this operation contained six 

captive Morelet’s crocodiles for 

exhibition purposes (CITES 2010a, p. 

24, Annex 3). 

When the CITES Appendix-II 

designation became effective on June 23, 

2010, for Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico 

and Belize, commercial international 

trade in captive Morelet’s crocodiles 

was no longer limited to crocodiles 

originating from the three operations 

that were registered with the CITES 

Secretariat. However, with the 

annotated listing, no export of wildcaught specimens for commercial 

purposes is allowed. Thus, any 

commercial export will continue to 

come from sources other than wild 

populations. There are currently 19 

closed-cycle captive-breeding 

operations registered with the 

Government of Mexico as UMAs for the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

production of Morelet’s crocodile in 

Mexico. Under Mexican law, UMAs 

registered with the Government of 

Mexico must be closed-cycle and prove 

that they can produce individuals 

beyond the F2 generation (UMAs are 

described more fully below). Only four 

of the 19 UMAs have a captive 

population sufficiently large to support 

commercial trade, and only two of these 

four UMAs currently support 

international commercial trade— 

(Cocodrilos Mexicanos and Industrias 

Moreletii) (CITES 2010a, Annex 3, p. 

24). Importing Morelet’s crocodiles from 

Mexican captive-breeding operations no 

longer requires a CITES import permit 

because a CITES import permit is not 

required for Appendix II species. 

However, a CITES export permit or reexport certificate is still required. 

Although the two remaining UMAs 

capable of supporting trade (Cacahuatal 

in Veracruz State and Punta del Este in 

Campeche State) currently do not 

contain enough Morelet’s crocodiles to 

support international commercial trade, 

they do have enough potential annual 

production to produce enough skins to 

support local commercial trade (CITES 

2010a, Annex 3, p. 24). 

Since the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Guatemala is listed as an Appendix-I 

species under CITES, the only way that 

Morelet’s crocodiles and their parts and 

products from Guatemala could legally 

be traded commercially in international 

trade is if a captive-breeding operation 

were to be registered with the CITES 

Secretariat. However, since Guatemala 

does not currently have any captive 

breeding operations that are registered 

with the CITES Secretariat, the 

commercial international trade in 

Morelet’s crocodile products from 

Guatemala remains restricted. 

However, under the current listing of 

the species under the Act, it remains 

illegal to import Morelet’s crocodiles or 

their parts or products into the United 

States, regardless of the source, unless 

the purpose of the import is for 

scientific research or enhancement of 

propagation or survival of the species. If 

this proposed rule is finalized and the 

prohibitions of the Act are removed, 

Morelet’s crocodile parts and products 

originating from sources other than wild 

populations from Mexico and Belize 

could be imported into the United 

States for commercial purposes, as long 

as the required CITES export permit or 

re-export certificate has been granted. 

As discussed earlier, however, an export 

permit will not be granted unless the 

exporting country finds that the export 

will not be detrimental to the species 

and the specimen was lawfully 

acquired. 

Mexico’s Proposal To Transfer the 

Morelet’s Crocodile to CITES Appendix 

II 

At the 2008 CITES Animals 

Committee meeting, the Government of 

Mexico submitted for comment and 

review a draft proposal to transfer 

Mexico’s population of Morelet’s 

crocodile from Appendix I to Appendix 

II based on Mexico’s belief that the 

Morelet’s crocodile no longer met the 

criteria for inclusion in Appendix I 

(CITES 2008a, pp. 1–28; CITES 2008a, p. 

32). Committee members were generally 

favorable of the proposal, but had 

several technical questions and 

suggestions. The Government of Mexico 

subsequently revised their 2008 

proposal and formally submitted a 2010 

CITES proposal for consideration at 

CoP15, held in March 2010 in Doha, 

Qatar (Government of Mexico 2010). 

The 2010 proposal was to transfer the 

Morelet’s crocodile throughout its range 

to Appendix II (CoP15 Prop. 8). The 

CITES Secretariat reviewed the proposal 

and agreed that the Morelet’s crocodile 

no longer met the biological criteria for 

an Appendix-I species and 

recommended that the proposal be 

adopted. 

The Government of Mexico’s 2010 

CITES proposal recommended 

transferring the Morelet’s crocodile from 

Appendix I to Appendix II because the 

species no longer met the criteria for 

inclusion in Appendix I. Under the 

2010 proposal, the transfer to Appendix 

II applied to all three range countries. 

The 2010 proposal included an 

annotation establishing a zero quota for 

wild specimens. The zero quota would 

prohibit any international trade in wild 

specimens within the context of CITES, 

thereby limiting the trade to Morelet’s 

crocodile and its products to those 

originating from sources other than wild 

specimens. Although the BelizeGuatemala-Mexico Tri-national Strategy 

for the Conservation and Sustainable 

Use of Morelet’s Crocodile (see the PostDelisting Monitoring section, below) 

includes long-term plans for ranching, 

none of the range countries have 

indicated they plan to ranch Morelet’s 

crocodiles within the foreseeable future. 

The Government of Mexico consulted 

with the Governments of Belize and 

Guatemala on their 2010 CITES 

proposal. The Government of Belize 

supported the proposal, but did not 

provide documents to the CITES 

Secretariat to indicate their official 

support. According to the Government 

of Mexico’s 2010 CITES proposal, the 

Government of Guatemala supported the 

proposal in part, but recommended 

transferring only the Mexican 

population of Morelet’s crocodile in 

captive-breeding operations to 

Appendix II, with a zero quota for wild 

specimens traded for commercial 

purposes. In a letter from Guatemala’s 

Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas to 

the Ambassador of Mexico dated 5 June 

2009 (CITES 2010a, Annex 4, p. 25), the 

Government of Guatemala indicated that 

it did not support the Government of 

Mexico’s 2010 CITES proposal as 

written. They recommended verifying 

that moving captive Morelet’s crocodiles 

in Mexico to Appendix II would not put 

wild Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico at 

risk. They supported Mexico’s transfer 

of captive-bred populations of Morelet’s 

crocodiles from Appendix I to 

Appendix II provided the parties ensure 

the following: 

• They verify that wild populations of 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico will not 

be at risk as they are moved from 

Appendix I to II; 

• If Mexico’s proposal at CoP15 is 

approved, then measures should be put 

in place for strict monitoring and 

enforcement on the Mexico-Guatemala 

border; 

• That the marking of live animals be 

done by methods that cannot be falsified 

and that skins be tagged in accordance 

with CITES to maintain chain of 

custody; 

• That the tagging methods for 

Mexican populations of Morelet’s 

crocodile be widely circulated to range 

countries and those countries importing 

parts and products as well as live 

specimens. 

Under Guatemala’s recommended 

scenario, Morelet’s crocodiles in 

Mexico, and Belize would be in 

Appendix II, with a zero quota for wild 

specimens traded for commercial 

purposes and all Morelet’s crocodiles in 

Guatemala would remain on Appendix 

I (CITES 2010a, pp. 12, 25–26). The 

Appendix-II designation became 

effective on June 23, 2010. As a result, 

Morelet’s crocodiles and their products 

from Mexico and Belize from sources 

other than wild populations are now 

allowed to enter international trade for 

commercial purposes under CITES. 

They are, however, not currently able to 

enter the United States market because 

the Act’s prohibitions remain in effect. 

The international commercial trade in 

all wild Morelet’s crocodiles remains 

restricted. 

At this time, the Government of 

Mexico intends to export products 

derived from Morelet’s crocodiles raised 

in its captive-breeding operations that 

are registered with the Government of 

Mexico as UMAs, and that have a 

proven track record of producing 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23667 

offspring beyond the F2 generation 

(CITES 2008, p. 23; CITES 2010a, p. 9). 

Now that the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Mexico and Belize is transferred to 

CITES Appendix II with an annotation 

providing a zero quota for wild 

specimens traded for commercial 

purposes, if this proposed delisting rule 

under the Act is finalized, then products 

originating from any captive-breeding 

operations in Mexico (and Belize, if any) 

could be imported into the United 

States. In addition, if this proposed 

delisting rule under the Act is finalized, 

then Morelet’s crocodile products 

manufactured in other countries could 

also be re-exported into the United 

States if those skins originated in 

Mexico or Belize and were not derived 

from wild populations. Live Morelet’s 

crocodiles and parts or products 

originating from Guatemala will remain 

in CITES Appendix I, with its associated 

trade restrictions remaining in place. 

Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. 

CoP15) the Parties to CITES have 

adopted a process, the National 

Legislation Project, to evaluate whether 

Parties have adequate domestic 

legislation to successfully implement 

the Treaty. In reviewing a country’s 

national legislation, the Secretariat 

considers whether a Party’s domestic 

laws designate the responsible Scientific 

and Management authorities, prohibit 

trade in violation of the Convention, 

have penalty provisions in place for 

illegal trade, and provide for seizure of 

specimens that were illegally traded or 

possessed. 

While both Guatemala and Mexico’s 

legislation have been determined to be 

sufficient to properly implement the 

Treaty, Belize’s national legislation was 

considered lacking. As part of the 

National Legislative Project, Belize has 

submitted a plan to revise their 

legislation to the Secretariat in March 

2010, but as of this proposed rule, have 

not officially enacted any revised 

legislation (CITES 2010e). Although a 

trade suspension was put in place for 

Belize for one orchid species, 

Myrmecophila tibicinis, the suspension 

was in relation to the Review of 

Significant Trade in Specimens of 

Appendix II species (CITES 2010d) and 

not due to Belize’s current legislation 

implementing CITES. If this proposed 

rule is finalized, CITES will continue to 

protect the Morelet’s crocodile 

throughout its range by regulating 

international trade. However, as part of 

this proposed rule, we are requesting 

any information on Belize’s efforts to 

enact national legislation and/or their 

efforts to ensure their compliance with 

CITES. We will continue to monitor 

Belize’s progress between the proposed 

and final rules. 

All three countries also have 

protected-species and protected-areas 

legislation under the jurisdiction of 

specific ministries or departments. The 

three range countries have an extensive 

regulatory framework to control 

activities with respect to the Morelet’s 

crocodile and its habitat. Mexico is 

unique among the three range countries 

in that the Government of Mexico also 

has legislation regulating captivebreeding operations. 

Mexico 

The Government of Mexico has a 

strict and comprehensive legal 

framework to regulate the conservation 

and sustainable use of the Morelet’s 

crocodile in Mexico: 

(1) Ley General de Equilibrio 

Ecolo ́ gico y Proteccio ́n al Ambiente 

(LGEEPA; General Ecological 

Equilibrium and Environmental 

Protection Law)—This is the primary 

Mexican law for environmental matters 

and is the principal legal instrument 

that regulates the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Mexico (CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 1). 

Passed in 1988, this law applies to and 

integrates the three levels of government 

within the context of natural resources: 

Federal, state, and municipal. With 

regard to trade in wildlife species, 

including the Morelet’s crocodile, the 

LGEEPA contains the basis to regulate 

all activities, including importation, 

exportation, seizures, sustainable use, 

violations, fines, animal welfare, and 

legal possession. While forty-five 

articles within the Mexican LGEEPA 

deal with environmental contamination 

(CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 1), we are 

not aware of any specific provisions and 

their relevance to Morelet’s crocodile. 

(2) Ley General de Vida Silvestre 

(LGVS: General Wildlife Law)—Passed 

in 2000, this law regulates the use, 

conservation, and management of 

domestic wild fauna and flora and their 

habitat (CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, pp. 

1–2). This law is based on the principle 

of sustainable use. Any activity with 

regard to wild fauna and flora must 

comply with certain requirements: The 

activity must be supported by an 

approved management plan; the 

quantity to be harvested must be less 

than natural recruitment (replacement); 

and the harvest must not have negative 

impacts on the wild populations, their 

habitat, or biological activities. With 

regard to the Morelet’s crocodile, 

harvest of wild populations is not 

permitted, and harvest under this law 

would only be permitted for specimens 

obtained through closed-cycle, captivebreeding operations which have 

programs that contribute to the 

development of wild populations 

(CITES 2010a, p. 9). 

According to the LGVS, alien 

specimens or populations are those 

occurring outside their natural range 

(such as the Morelet’s crocodiles found 

on the Pacific coast of Mexico), 

including hybrids. Such specimens or 

populations can only be managed in 

captivity, and with prior approval. A 

management plan must be in place with 

established security and contingency 

measures to avoid any negative effects 

on the conservation of wild native 

specimens and populations or their 

habitat. LGVS establishes management, 

control, and remediation measures for 

individuals or populations considered 

harmful. Measures may consist of 

capture/collection for the development 

of recovery, restocking and 

reintroduction projects; for research or 

environmental education activities; for 

relocation of specimens (subject to prior 

evaluation of the destination habitat and 

condition of the individuals); for 

elimination or eradication of 

individuals/populations; or of actions or 

devices to keep the individuals away, 

disperse them, make access difficult or 

reduce the damage they cause (CITES 

2010a, p. 9). 

(3) Programa de Conservacio ́n de la 

Vida Silvestre y Diversificacio ́n 

Productiva en el Sector Rural (Program 

for Wildlife Conservation and 

Productive Diversification of the Rural 

Sector)—Launched in 2000, this 

program defines the conceptual, 

strategic, legal and administrative 

framework that governs any initiative 

for the conservation and use of wild 

species (CITES 2010a, p. 8). The goal of 

this program is to establish incentives 

for private and public initiatives that 

favor natural resources conservation, as 

well as provide economic opportunities 

for private entities for the sustainable 

use of these resources (CONABIO 2005, 

Annex 3, pp. 2–3). Based on a biological 

evaluation of the species, this program 

promotes the use and conservation of 

priority species of plants and animals, 

including the establishment of wildlife 

production units and technical advisory 

committees such as the COMACROM 

(Subcomite ́ Te ́cnico Consultivo para la 

Conservacio ́n, Manejo y 

Aprovechamiento Sustentable de los 

Crocodylia en Me ́xico; Technical 

Advisory Subcommittee for the 

Conservation, Management and 

Sustainable Use of the Crocodilians in 

Mexico) in the case of the Morelet’s 

crocodile. Created by the Government of 

Mexico in 1999, COMACROM includes 

scientists, technicians, NGOs, 

producers, authorities and other 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

stakeholders. It participates in meetings 

of the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group 

(CSG) and contributes publications to 

the CSG (CITES 2010a, p. 8). 

(4) Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM– 

059–SEMARNAT–2001—Passed in 

2001, this regulation provides legal 

protection to domestic endangered 

species of fauna and flora and provides 

a mechanism to evaluate extinction 

risks (CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 3). 

The Me ́todo de Evaluacio ́n de Riesgo de 

Extincio ́n de Especies Silvestres de 

Me ́xico (MER; Method to Evaluate 

Wildlife Extinction Risks in Mexico), 

one of the parts of this regulation, has 

four categories of risk: Probably extinct 

in the wild, in peril, threatened, and 

subject to special protection. The 

Morelet’s crocodile is included in the 

category ‘‘subject to special protection.’’ 

This regulation defines the category 

‘‘subject to special protection’’ as ‘‘those 

species or populations that might find 

themselves threatened by factors that 

adversely affect their viability, thus 

determining the need to promote 

conservation or recovery and the 

recovery and conservation of associated 

species populations. (This category may 

include lower risk categories of the 

IUCN classification).’’ 

Although the Government of Mexico 

no longer classifies the Morelet’s 

crocodile as ‘‘Endangered’’ or 

‘‘Threatened,’’ classification as ‘‘subject 

to special protection’’ under Mexican 

Official Law NOM–059–SEMARNAT– 

2001 allows legal protection at the 

national level (CITES 2010a, p. 9). 

Including the Morelet’s crocodile in this 

category allows the Government of 

Mexico to make sure it still meets the 

conservation needs of important species 

from both a biologically and socioeconomic standpoint before the species 

can be considered as threatened or 

endangered. The petitioners 

recommended keeping the Morelet’s 

crocodile in this category of ‘‘subject to 

special protection’’ to maintain existing 

measures of conservation, technical 

supervision, monitoring and 

enforcement in order to avoid the 

species’ having a higher risk category in 

the future (CONABIO 2005, p. 4 and 

Annex 2, p. 5). 

(5) Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM– 

126–SEMARNAT–2000—Passed in 

2000, this regulation oversees scientific 

research and collection by individual 

domestic and foreign researchers, as 

well as by institutions (CONABIO 2005, 

Annex 3, p. 3). If a species is also 

regulated under CITES, the appropriate 

permit or certificate must be obtained 

under this regulation. Scientific 

research or collections involving the 

Morelet’s crocodile are regulated under 

these provisions. 

(6) Sistema de Unidades de Manejo 

para la Conservacio ́n de la Vida 

Silvestre (SUMA; Wildlife Conservation 

Management and Administration Unit 

System)—In 1997, the Government of 

Mexico established a system for 

registering, supervising, and enforcing 

UMAs (Unidad de Manejo y 

Administracio ́n; Conservation 

Management and Administrative Units) 

for intensive reproduction of 

economically valuable natural 

resources, including captive farming of 

Morelet’s crocodiles (CONABIO 2005, 

Annex 3, pp. 3–5). The goal of this 

regulation was to ensure that 

biodiversity conservation be considered 

within the context of the production 

and socioeconomic needs of the 

country. This system combined a broad 

range of entities or facilities (‘‘units’’) 

under a single administrative program, 

including zoological and botanical 

gardens, greenhouses, and animal 

breeding centers. Through these units, 

the Government of Mexico promotes 

natural resources uses that are 

responsible and planned. Extensive and 

intensive captive-breeding units for the 

Morelet’s crocodile are covered under 

this system. In exchange for the right to 

harvest the Morelet’s crocodile under 

controlled conditions, closed-cycle 

captive-breeding unit operators are 

required to develop and implement an 

approved management plan for the site, 

as well as to conserve the species’ 

habitat and other species that use that 

habitat. Strict animal husbandry 

practices and welfare considerations are 

required under these plans. 

Legal registration of approved UMAs 

requires proof of captive production 

beyond the F2 generation (CITES 2010a, 

p. 9). For intensive UMAs, such as 

captive-breeding operations in Mexico, 

the Government of Mexico requires the 

UMAs to submit regular reports that 

must include information on births and 

deaths, number and identification of 

traded specimens, and management 

activities (CITES 2010a, p. 10). 

The Government of Mexico uses three 

methods to mark live Morelet’s 

crocodiles registered with the Wildlife 

Division through the corresponding 

inventories of UMAs. The first method 

is interdigital staples on the feet. The 

second method is the traditional method 

of cutting notches in the tail scales and 

is only used by some operations (CITES 

2010a, p. 10). These marks are registered 

with the Government of Mexico. The 

third method is the Universal Tagging 

System required by CITES for the export 

of skins (Resolution Conf. 11.12 (Rev. 

CoP15), which consists of a plastic 

security tag with the UMA registration 

number, the species code, a serial 

number, and the year of production or 

harvest. Any application for a CITES 

export permit must include the number 

of the authorized specimen based on the 

interdigital tag and the skin’s plastic 

security tag and is used to track skins 

and other products (CITES 2010a, p. 10). 

Approximately 50 UMAs have been 

registered for rearing Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Mexico since the 1980s, 

primarily for domestic commerce. 

Nineteen of them are still actively 

managing the species and three were 

registered with the CITES Secretariat 

when the species in Mexico was 

included in Appendix I (CITES 2010a, 

p. 11). Only five of the nineteen UMAs 

have the potential for annual 

commercial production of products 

made from Morelet’s crocodile (CITES 

2010a, p. 24). 

(7) Sistema Nacional de A ́ reas 

Naturales Protegidas (SINANP; National 

System of Protected Natural Areas)— 

Passed in 2000, this system is made up 

of parcels identified as Protected 

Natural Areas (CONABIO 2005, Annex 

3, p. 5). These Protected Natural Areas 

are created by Presidential decree and 

the activities on them are regulated 

under the LGEEPA, which requires that 

the Protected Natural Areas receive 

special protection for conservation, 

restoration and development activities. 

The National Commission of Natural 

Protected Areas (CONANP), a 

decentralized organ of the Government 

of Mexico’s Ministry of Environment 

and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), 

currently administers 173 federal 

natural areas representing more than 

62,396,392 ac (25,250,963 ha). These 

natural areas are categorized as: 

Biosphere Reserves, National Parks, 

Natural Monuments, Areas of Natural 

Resource Protection, Areas of Protection 

of Flora and Fauna, and Sanctuaries. 

These areas are protected under 

Mexican law because they contain key 

or representative ecosystems or species, 

or ecosystems or species that are at risk 

and require strict control. Many 

ecosystems or species, including the 

Morelet’s crocodile, are protected under 

this system. According to the 

Government of Mexico, SINANP 

includes at least 12 protected areas 

occupied by Morelet’s crocodile, 

covering an estimated 13 percent of the 

species’ geographic range (CONABIO 

2005, p. 30). 

(8) Co ́digo Penal Federal (Federal 

Penal Code)—The code contains a 

special section for environmental crimes 

(CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, pp. 5–6). 

These penalties apply to those who 

commit crimes against plants or 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23669 

animals, as well as to individuals who 

illegally use or commercialize regulated 

species without authorization. These 

penalties apply to crimes involving the 

Morelet’s crocodiles. 

In order to implement and enforce the 

laws and regulations mentioned above, 

SEMARNAT created the office of the 

Procuradurı ́a Federal de Proteccio ́n al 

Ambiente (PROFEPA; Federal 

Prosecutor for Environmental 

Protection) and the Programa para la 

Inspeccio ́n y Vigilancia en Puertos, 

Aeropuertos y Fronteras (Ports, 

Airports, and Borders Inspection and 

Enforcement Program) (CONABIO 2005, 

Annex 3, p. 6). Under this program, 

imports and exports for key products 

regulated by SEMARNAT are inspected 

at 65 points of entry and exit to prevent 

laundering. Morelet’s crocodile 

products are regulated under this 

program. PROFEPA implements the 

Environmental Inspection Program at 

ports, airports, and borders, and the 

Wildlife Inspection Program, monitoring 

all stages of the use of wild species and 

ensuring their protection. Inspection 

and enforcement programs make these 

Mexican laws and regulations more 

effective, especially at airports and 

border ports of entry and exit. Specific 

actions include the verification of crossborder movements in compliance with 

CITES and other international 

agreements in coordination with 

customs authorities; inspection of areas 

of wildlife harvest, stockpiling, 

distribution, and sale; surveillance of 

areas of wildlife distribution and 

harvest; and special operations in areas 

of wildlife harvest, stockpiling, 

distribution and sale, in coordination 

with public law enforcement and 

judicial authorities (Govt. of Mexico 

2010, p. 11). Mexico has implemented 

several programs to prevent and combat 

illegal harvest, including the System of 

Wildlife Management Units (SUMA) 

which is based on six key elements: (1) 

Registration with the Wildlife Division 

(DGVS Direccio ́n General de Vida 

Silvestre- SEMARNAT, CITES 

Management Authority); (2) proper 

habitat management; (3) monitoring of 

wild populations of the species 

harvested; (4) controlled harvest 

(including periodic reports and 

inventories on each UMA); (5) 

management plan approved and 

registered with the Wildlife Division; 

and (6) certificate of production and 

market/tagging methods. SEMARNAT 

conducts random inspections of UMAs 

and, if any issues are detected in the 

management plan, carries out 

population studies, including sampling 

activities and species inventories and 

produces periodic reports on these 

findings (CITES 2010a, p. 10). 

We do not have any information on 

whether the Mexican legal framework 

specifically authorizes subsistence 

hunting or cultural use of the Morelet’s 

crocodile, or on the current level of 

enforcement, or whether the 

enforcement is considered adequate. 

Belize 

The Government of Belize also has a 

legal framework that regulates the 

conservation and sustainable use of the 

Morelet’s crocodile, along with other 

species of birds, mammals, and reptiles 

(collectively known as Scheduled 

species). In general terms, the Wildlife 

Protection Act prohibits illegal harvest 

and export in Belize (Government of 

Belize 2000 p. 7–9). The Forestry 

Department, within the Ministry of 

Natural Resources and the Environment, 

is the relevant government agency with 

respect to the Morelet’s crocodile. 

Under this legislation, the Game 

Warden controls hunting of these 

species. Certain activities are prohibited 

and a license is required. For example, 

hunting of the Morelet’s crocodile is 

prohibited. Importation and exportation 

of wildlife is subject to strict protocols 

and provisions of the Wildlife 

Protection Act and requires a permit. 

Hunting of certain species for scientific 

or educational purposes also requires a 

permit. The legislation also identifies 

offenses and penalties. 

In addition to the Wildlife Protection 

Act, the Government of Belize is in the 

process of developing and 

implementing a National List of Critical 

Species (Meerman 2005a, pp. 1–8; 

Meerman 2005b, p. 38). This list is 

based, in part, on the procedures used 

by IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Animals (see IUCN 2001, version 3.1, 35 

pp.). Within the context of the Belize 

Protected Areas Policy and System Plan, 

this list will serve as a basis for the 

Belize Red Data List. According to the 

2005 list (Meerman 2005a, p. 8), the 

Morelet’s crocodile is categorized as 

‘‘CD’’ (Conservation Dependant) in 

Belize due to the following factors: 

small range, hunted, economic 

importance, charismatic species 

drawing national and international 

attention, and persecuted as perceived 

pest. Under the 2005 list, Conservation 

Dependent species are taxa that are the 

focus of a continuing taxon-specific or 

habitat-specific conservation program 

for the taxon in question, the cessation 

of which would result in the taxon 

qualifying for one of the threatened 

categories on the list within five years 

(Meerman 2005a, p. 3). 

These laws and regulations provide 

legal protection to the Morelet’s 

crocodile in Belize. We have no 

information on whether the Wildlife 

Protection Act is sufficiently enforced. 

The CITES Legislation Project (CITES 

2010e) concluded that Belize’s national 

legislation does not meet any of the 

requirements for implementing CITES. 

However, Belize has submitted a plan 

and draft legislation to CITES as of 

March 2010, but has not officially 

enacted the legislation. In spite of this 

assessment by CITES, trade data seem to 

indicate the threat of unregulated trade 

from Belize is minimal. However, as 

part of this rule, we are requesting from 

the public any information pertaining to 

Belize’s efforts to fully enact legislation 

and ensure their compliance with 

CITES. 

Guatemala 

The Government of Guatemala also 

has a legal framework that regulates the 

conservation and sustainable use of 

natural resources, including the 

Morelet’s crocodile (IIA URL FCAA 

IARNA 2003, pp. 67–69; IARNA URL 

IIA 2006, pp. 104–107; Repu ́ blica de 

Guatemala 2007, pp. 3–4 and 31). In 

general terms, and based on our review 

of other materials, natural resources 

management is under the jurisdiction of 

the Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos 

Naturales (Ministry of the Environment 

and Natural Resources; USAID 2002, pp. 

44–45; Repu ́ blica de Guatemala 2007, 

pp. 3–4 and 9). The main legislation in 

this regard is Decreto Nu ́mero 4–89 (Ley 

de A ́ reas Protegidas, Gobierno de 

Guatemala 1989, pp. 1–24; Birner et al. 

2005, p. 290; Law of Protected Areas 

and Amendments/Revisions). This 

decree established the Comisio ́n 

Nacional de A ́ reas Protegidas (CONAP; 

National Commission on Protected 

Areas). CONAP has been tasked to run 

the Sistema Nacional de A ́ reas 

Protegidas (SIGAP; National System of 

Protected Areas; IARNA URL IIA 2006, 

pp. 104–107). In Guatemala, the 

Morelet’s crocodile is included in the 

Endangered Species List (Resolution No. 

ALC/032–99 of CONAP) in Category 2, 

‘‘Seriously Endangered,’’ which includes 

species that are endangered because of 

habitat loss, trade, the very small size of 

their populations and/or endemism 

with limited distribution (CITES 2010a, 

p. 9). 

In the past, threats to the Morelet’s 

crocodile and its habitat in Guatemala, 

compounded with the lack of funding 

and personnel, made it difficult for the 

Government of Guatemala to adequately 

enforce these laws and regulations. 

Ongoing conservation actions were 

often overwhelmed by slow economic 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

development, high levels of poverty, 

unequal land distribution, a highly 

segmented society, and the effects of 

more than three decades of civil war 

(Birner et al. 2005, pp. 285, 292). In 

2003, Laguna del Tigre National Park 

was considered by ParkWatch as 

critically threatened due to land grabs, 

the presence of human settlements, 

expanding agriculture and cattle 

ranching, poaching, forest fires, the oil 

industry, and an almost complete lack 

of institutional control over the area 

(ParksWatch 2003, pp. 1, 11). However, 

in 2004 ParksWatch stated that the staff 

at Laguna del Tigre had doubled in size 

since their 2003 report (ParksWatch 

2004, p, 30.) Seventy-three park rangers, 

10 archeological site guards and 96 

Army personnel were hired to staff the 

park and since the increase in staffing, 

both the park and the biotope are 

‘‘constantly patrolled.’’ In addition, the 

Wildlife Conservation Society and U.S. 

AID continued its ‘‘Biodiversity 

Conservation at a Landscape Scale’’ 

program and has provided a 

comprehensive plan with specific goals 

to preserve and protect wildlife in the 

MBR in Guatemala through conserving 

wildlife species and their habitat, while 

maintaining the economic productivity 

of renewable natural resources. They are 

fulfilling these goals by establishing 

specific parameters. Namely, ‘‘to 

develop adaptive and participatory 

strategy to reduce threats to wildlife in 

the MBR; to develop, implement and 

monitor sustainable mechanisms to 

reduce threats to wildlife and 

ecosystems across the MBR landscape; 

to learn and teach best management 

practices for the conservation of the 

MBR and beyond; and to guide, design 

and test wildlife-focused planning’’ 

(WCS 2008, page 3). For the past nine 

years the WCS has been conducting 

overflights of Laguna del Tigre Park 

with the Guatemalan National Park 

Service and LightHawk (a volunteerbased environmental aviation 

organization) and has used that 

information to identify illegal 

colonization, resulting in successfully 

removing illegal squatters (80+ families) 

from the area. In addition, overflights 

revealed marijuana clearings on the 

eastern-most port of Mirador-Rı ́o Azule 

National Park in 2007. WCS overflights 

helped to monitor fires, locate illegal 

settlements and notify the national and 

provincial government as well as the 

national media of illegal activities. As a 

result, the presence of fires in Laguna 

del Tigre National Park has been 

reduced by 90%. In addition, WCS has 

taken an active role in educating locals 

and concessionaires on best 

management practices for sustainable 

use of forest products. (WCS 10 year 

report, no date given, page 6). 

In August 2010, the president of 

Guatemala announced that he is 

deploying 250 soldiers to recover fully 

all the protected zones of El Pete ́n in the 

Laguna del Tigre section of the MBR. 

This ‘‘Green Battalion’’ is being 

deployed specifically to protect the 

Laguna del Tigre National Park and 

work jointly with the National Civil 

Police and the Attorney General’s Office 

to combat drug trafficking and the 

illegal harvest of natural resources and 

archaeological sites of that region of the 

MBR (Latin American Herald Tribune, 

December 6, 2010). 

The Government of Guatemala is also 

participating in the Tri-national Strategy 

(see the Post-Delisting Monitoring 

section below) for Morelet’s crocodile, 

wherein specific actions directed 

toward the Morelet’s crocodile are 

defined. Conservation actions in 

Guatemala are being developed and 

implemented within the context of the 

Convention on Biological Diversity and 

the National Biodiversity Strategy and 

Action Plan (Birner et al. 2005, p. 285). 

Many outstanding accomplishments 

have been achieved in Guatemala in 

terms of biodiversity conservation 

(IARNA URL IIA 2006, p. 22) and the 

Guatemalan government seems 

committed to ensuring that 

environmental management and 

enforcement efforts continue. 

Summary of Factor D 

Based on all three range countries 

being Parties to CITES, as well as having 

protected-species and protected-areas 

legislation, and implementing this 

legislation, and enforcing relevant laws, 

the current regulatory mechanisms 

appear to be adequate to conserve the 

Morelet’s crocodile in the majority of 

the species’ range. As per the CITES 

National Legislation Project (CITES 

2010e), both Guatemala and Mexico’s 

legislation meet all the requirements for 

implementing CITES. Belize’s national 

legislation was considered not to meet 

any of the requirements for 

implementing CITES. However, Belize 

has submitted a plan and draft 

legislation to CITES as of March 2010, 

but has not officially enacted the 

legislation. Per decisions made during 

CoP15, the CITES protections for 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Guatemala will 

remain unchanged. They will remain 

protected as an Appendix-I species, 

with those CITES trade restrictions 

remaining in place. 

Together, Mexico and Belize contain 

the majority of wild individuals (87 

percent) and the estimated potentially 

suitable habitat (81 percent) throughout 

the species’ range. We anticipate that 

these conditions will remain essentially 

the same, both domestically and 

internationally in the sense of moreeffective regulatory mechanisms, in the 

foreseeable future (e.g., CITES). 

However, we did not solely rely on 

these future measures in finding the 

species is no longer threatened or 

endangered. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms, 

including CITES and domestic 

prohibitions on harvest of wild 

Morelet’s crocodiles, have played a vital 

role in resurgence of Morelet’s 

crocodiles over the last 40 years. While 

some trade restrictions could be lifted in 

the future, particularly to allow 

increased trade in captive-bred 

specimens now that Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Mexico and Belize have 

been moved to CITES Appendix II with 

a zero export quota for wild specimens 

traded for commercial purposes, we 

believe such lifting of restrictions would 

pose little risk to the species. All three 

range countries restrict the use of wild 

specimens and the Government of 

Mexico has institutions with proven 

track records to administer and enforce 

controls on captive-breeding operations 

and laundering of illegal specimens. 

Should the zero export quota for wild 

specimens traded for commercial 

purposes be lifted, it may create greater 

enforcement challenges in all three 

range countries in the foreseeable future 

because the taking of wild Morelet’s 

crocodiles could be authorized. If it 

does, the requirements of CITES 

Appendix II will apply. The exporting 

country will be required to determine 

that the export is not detrimental to the 

survival of the species in the wild and 

specimens are legally acquired prior to 

issuing a permit authorizing the export. 

However, a change to the annotation 

would require approval of two-thirds of 

the Parties voting at a CoP and cannot 

be done unilaterally by any of the range 

countries. Therefore, we do not have 

any indication that CITES and the 

regulatory mechanisms of the range 

countries will be inadequate to continue 

to protect the species in the wild if this 

proposed delisting rule under the Act is 

finalized, or if ranching is authorized in 

the future. 

The reproduction and survival rates of 

wild Morelet’s crocodiles are currently 

robust. Populations remain stable 

throughout most of their range, and 

have expanded their range in some 

areas. In conclusion, we find that, taken 

together, the currently existing 

protections described above are 

adequate, and they will remain adequate 

to protect the Morelet’s crocodile and its 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23671 

habitat in the majority of its range now 

and within the foreseeable future. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Continued 

Existence of the Species 

Human-Crocodile Conflicts 

The Morelet’s crocodile is known to 

attack humans. While data about these 

conflicts are limited, anecdotal reports 

suggest that these conflicts are 

widespread and ongoing. In a welldocumented attack in Belize in August 

2001, a Morelet’s crocodile attacked a 

13-year-old male and caused him to 

drown in the Belama area of Belize City 

(Finger et al. 2002, p. 198). 

More often, human-crocodile conflicts 

involving the Morelet’s crocodile are 

more benign. In Mexico, for example, 

the Crocodile Museum (Chiapas State; 

about 80 cases per year) assists local 

officials through the capture, rescue, 

and relocation of local crocodilians (all 

three species, including the Morelet’s 

crocodile) that are considered 

potentially dangerous or, because of 

their location (close proximity to human 

activities), they might be killed by local 

inhabitants (Domı ́nguez-Laso 2008, p. 

5). Abercrombie et al. (1982, p. 19) 

reported that the Morelet’s crocodile 

was generally feared in Belize. Finger et 

al. (2002, p. 199) indicated that 

development related to human 

occupation (such as residential areas 

and infrastructure) in Morelet’s 

crocodile habitat around Belize City was 

generating increasing numbers of 

human-crocodile conflicts. Windsor et 

al. (2002, p. 418) also noted that the 

practice of feeding the Morelet’s 

crocodile by residents and tourists was 

becoming more common and was also 

generating increasing numbers of 

human-crocodile conflicts in Belize. 

According to Platt and Thorbjarnarson 

(2000a, p. 27), large Morelet’s 

crocodiles, despite legal protections, are 

still perceived as threats to humans and 

livestock, and are occasionally killed 

near residential areas in Belize. While 

educational programs are needed for 

local residents and visitors to deter this 

activity, it may also be necessary to 

develop a problem crocodile removal 

program to resolve these conflicts 

(Windsor et al. 2002, p. 418). No 

information was available about humancrocodile conflicts in Guatemala. 

Although human-crocodile conflicts are 

affecting local populations of Morelet’s 

crocodiles, and this is likely to continue 

in the foreseeable future, we do not have 

any evidence that it is currently or 

anticipated to be a threat to the species 

as a whole. 

Environmental Contaminants 

Environmental contaminants are 

known to have negative impacts on 

terrestrial vertebrates (Smith et al. 2007, 

p. 41), including crocodilians (Ross 

1998, p. 3). The primary routes through 

which terrestrial reptiles, including the 

Morelet’s crocodile, are exposed to 

environmental pollutants are ingestion 

of contaminated prey, dermal contact, 

maternal transfer, and accumulation of 

chemicals into eggs from contaminated 

nesting media (Smith et al. 2007, p. 48). 

With regard to the Morelet’s crocodile, 

organochlorine contaminants have been 

detected in the scutes (external scales) 

(DeBusk 2001, pp. viii–ix) and the 

chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) of 

hatched Morelet’s crocodile eggs 

(Pepper et al. 2004, pp. 493 and 495), as 

well as in whole contents analysis of 

nonviable crocodile eggs (Wu et al. 

2000a, p. 6,416; 2000b, p. 671; Wu et al. 

2006, 151). 

The most common organochlorine 

found in studies of Morelet’s crocodile 

in Belize was DDE 

(dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene), 

detected in 100 percent of eggs collected 

by Wu et al. (2000b, p. 673) and 69 

percent of CAMs sampled by Pepper et 

al. (2004, p. 495). Organochlorines have 

also been detected at additional sites 

throughout coastal Belize and the 

interior highlands (Meerman 2006a, p. 

26; Wu et al. 2006, p. 153). Although 

exposure to organochlorines has been 

linked to adverse effects on population 

health of the American alligator in 

Florida (several studies cited by Wu et 

al. 2000b, p. 676), no population-level 

effects were detected in Belize 

(McMurry and Anderson 2000, pp. 1 

and 4; Wu et al. 2000b, p. 676). 

Rainwater (2003, pp. xii and 38), 

however, later suggested that some of 

the sites that had been chosen for 

comparative purposes in fact had 

similar contaminant profiles and that 

some study results suggesting no 

significant differences between sites 

may be equivocal. 

Vitellogenin induction (development 

of the egg yolk) in the Morelet’s 

crocodile, suggesting endocrine 

disruption due to environmental 

contamination when exhibited by 

males, recently has become a research 

topic in Belize. Reproductive 

impairment due to endocrine-disrupting 

contaminants has been demonstrated 

elsewhere in crocodilians and is 

suspected to occur in Belize due to 

known contaminant levels (Selcer et al. 

2006, p. 50; Rainwater et al. 2008, p. 

101). Initial results have not 

documented contaminant-induced 

vitellogenin in blood plasma in the 

Morelet’s crocodile, but this condition 

may occur in the wild in Belize; studies 

are ongoing (Selcer et al. 2006, p. 50; 

Rainwater et al. 2008, pp. 101 and 106– 

107). 

Mercury was detected in nonviable 

Morelet’s crocodile eggs collected from 

eight nests across three localities in 

northern Belize in 1995 (Rainwater et al. 

2002a, p. 320; Rainwater et al. 2002b, p. 

190). While mercury was detected in all 

eggs sampled, the mean concentration 

per egg was among the lowest reported 

values for any crocodile species. No 

overt signs of mercury toxicity or 

evidence of a population decline was 

noted for Morelet’s crocodiles at the site 

(Rainwater et al. 2002a, pp. 321–322). 

All samples for studies of 

organochlorine and mercury 

contaminants cited above came from 

Belize, and we are not aware of any 

similar investigations elsewhere in the 

Morelet’s crocodile range (Mexico or 

Guatemala). Since reproduction and 

survival rates of Morelet’s crocodiles are 

currently robust, we do not have any 

reason to believe that environmental 

contaminants are currently likely to 

cause the Morelet’s crocodile to become 

in danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future. 

Populations currently remain stable 

throughout most of the species range, 

and have even expanded their range in 

some areas. This provides empirical 

evidence of the species’ intrinsic 

resilience and adaptability. There is no 

evidence that environmental 

contaminants currently pose a threat to 

the species. Although environmental 

contaminants may represent a potential 

threat, especially given the potential for 

long-term bioaccumulation of 

contaminants during the species’ long 

reproductive life, given this species’ 

resiliency we do not have any data to 

indicate that it is likely to become a 

threat in the foreseeable future. 

Manmade factors that could affect the 

continued existence of the Morelet’s 

crocodile, according to CONABIO 

(CONABIO 2005, p. 32), were the 

construction and operation of oil 

extraction infrastructure and 

thermoelectric plants. The operation of 

chemical and manufacturing industries 

could also become a threat if potentially 

toxic residual materials are disposed of 

improperly. These activities, however, 

are highly regulated by the Ley General 

de Equilibrio Ecolo ́gico y Proteccio ́n al 

Ambiente (LGEEPA); General Ecological 

Equilibrium and Environmental 

Protection Law) and the Attorney 

General for the Protection of the 

Environment (PROFEPA). Under 

LGEEPA, every new project has to fulfill 

strict protocols for the assessment of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

environmental impacts before it can be 

approved. 

As discussed above in the Factor D., 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms, section, the Government 

of Guatemala opposed the Government 

of Mexico’s 2010 CITES proposal based, 

in part, on threats to the species from 

pollution in Guatemala (CITES 2010a, p. 

6). However, we do not have any 

information or data on the extent of the 

impact, if any, that pollution may have 

on the Morelet’s crocodile in Guatemala. 

Genetic Diversity and Integrity 

At least three factors have been 

identified as potential threats with 

respect to the Morelet’s crocodile: (1) 

Genetic heterogeneity; (2) hybridization; 

and (3) male-biased sex ratios. 

Genetic Heterogeneity 

Evaluation of nine microsatellite loci, 

highly repetitive DNA sequences, from 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Belize suggested 

a high degree of genetic heterogeneity 

within local populations, relatively high 

levels of migration among populations, 

and no evidence of a major genetic 

bottleneck due to population depletion 

in the mid-1900s (Dever and Densmore 

2001, pp. 543–544; Dever et al. 2002, 

p. 1084). Population bottlenecks are a 

period when a species population drops 

to such a low level that many genetic 

lineages become extinct and genetic 

variation is reduced to a few 

individuals, resulting in genetic 

homogeneity. If severe, it can lead to 

inbreeding. Endangered species that do 

not become extinct might expand their 

populations, but with limited genetic 

diversity, they may not be able to adapt 

to changing environmental conditions. 

The high degree of genetic heterogeneity 

found in Morelet’s crocodiles was 

attributed to frequent migration by 

individuals among the several adjacent 

Morelet’s crocodile populations. Ray et 

al. (2004, pp. 455–457) found low levels 

of genetic diversity in the mitochondrial 

control region of Morelet’s crocodiles at 

10 sites in northern Belize and at one 

site each in northern Guatemala and 

Mexico, but these results were 

inconsistent with a population 

bottleneck and may be typical of 

crocodilian populations. Other studies 

of the repetitive sequences in the 

mitochondrial control are ongoing in the 

Morelet’s crocodile and may be a useful 

tool for researchers investigating 

population dynamics of this species 

(Ray and Densmore 2003, p. 1012). 

Hybridization 

Data suggest that some hybridization 

between Morelet’s crocodiles and 

American crocodiles has always 

periodically occurred in the wild in 

areas where both species are sympatric, 

and that the hybridization is more 

frequent than previously believed 

(Ceden ̃ o-Va ́zquez et al., 2008, p. 666– 

667; Rodrı ́guez et al., 2008, p. 678). 

While the first hybrids were identified 

in coastal areas of eastern Belize, later 

studies also located hybrids in Mexico 

along the eastern and northern coasts of 

the Yucatan Peninsula (Ray et al. 2004, 

p. 449; Ceden ̃o-Va ́zquez et al. 2008, 

p. 661; Rodrı ́guez et al. 2008, p. 674). 

Hybridization involves several key 

issues. First, hybridization appears to be 

bidirectional (males of one species with 

females of the other species, and vice 

versa). In addition, hybrids (confirmed 

by laboratory tests) do not always 

exhibit physical characteristics (such as 

body size, shape, or coloration) that are 

a mixture of both species, and they are 

not always readily identifiable as such 

in the hand. Furthermore, F2 hybrids 

and backcrosses of hybrids to 

nonhybrids have been reported. These 

circumstances hinder the field 

identification of potential hybrids. 

Ray et al. (2004, p. 459) stated that 

further assessment of genetic contact 

between these two species should 

precede reclassification of Morelet’s 

under CITES, presumably because of 

uncertainty regarding numbers of 

genetically pure individuals in Belize. 

While populations of both the Morelet’s 

crocodile and the American crocodile 

suffered from the hunting pressures of 

the 1950s and 1960s, the American 

crocodile has been slower to recover. 

Indeed, Ray et al. (2004, p. 459) noted 

that hybridization likely represents a 

greater danger to the genetic integrity of 

the larger but rarer American crocodile 

than to the Morelet’s crocodile in Belize. 

The Service believes this concern bears 

additional investigation, but is not 

sufficient to warrant continued 

endangered or threatened status under 

the Act for the Morelet’s crocodile. 

One hypothetical concern about 

hybridization is that supplementation of 

wild Morelet’s crocodile populations in 

Mexico with captive-bred crocodiles 

might affect the genetic integrity of wild 

populations. While analyses of captivebred populations have not been 

published, differences in the nature and 

extent of genetic variation of these 

populations compared with wild 

populations might be expected. It is not 

clear if these differences, if they occur, 

would be significant or important from 

a conservation standpoint. Furthermore, 

this issue may be a moot point. 

Although agreements between captivebreeding operations and the 

Government of Mexico require breeders 

to make available up to 10 percent of 

their offspring for reintroduction to the 

wild, or as breeding stock for other 

crocodile farms in the country, no 

releases of captive-bred stock have 

occurred (Mexico 2006, p. 28). No 

releases have occurred because the 

current total population sizes of wild 

populations in Mexico, according to 

Mexican officials, are sufficiently large 

to render releases unnecessary (CITES 

2008, p. 23). However, accidental 

escapes and deliberate releases of the 

Morelet’s crocodile from captive 

rearing-units outside of the species’ 

natural range have occurred in wetland 

habitats along the Pacific coast of 

Mexico. These wetland habitats are 

already occupied by the naturally 

occurring American crocodile, and 

interactions between the two crocodile 

species are likely (Ross 1995, p. 14). 

These escapes and releases of Morelet’s 

crocodiles may pose risks to the genetic 

integrity of naturally occurring 

American crocodiles, but probably not 

to Morelet’s crocodiles. The 

Government of Mexico is making efforts 

to diagnose potential threats to the 

native American crocodile caused by 

hybridization with the introduced 

Morelet’s crocodile on the Pacific coast 

of Mexico. The goal of these efforts is to 

generate morphological and molecular 

identification materials and study the 

population dynamics of the American 

crocodile. It will include monitoring 

and harvest of Morelet’s crocodiles and 

hybrids for scientific research (CITES 

2010a, p. 6). 

Although hybridization between 

American and Morelet’s crocodiles 

continues to affect negatively some local 

populations of the Morelet’s crocodile, 

the impacts appear to be very small. We 

have no evidence that hybridization is 

currently or anticipated to affect 

significantly the Morelet’s crocodile 

throughout its range. 

Male-biased Sex Ratios 

Another potential risk from 

supplementation of wild populations 

with captive-bred Morelet’s crocodiles 

is that of skewed sex ratios (greater 

proportion of males in captive 

populations). Incubation temperature 

affects the sex ratio of crocodilian 

species differently (Escobedo-Galva ́n 

2006, p. 131). Like many crocodilian 

species, the Morelet’s crocodile exhibits 

temperature-dependent sex 

determination. Incubation temperatures 

greater than about 93 °F (34 °C) or less 

than 90 °F (32 °C) produce females, 

while temperatures between 90–93 °F 

(32–34 °C) generally produce males 

(Escobedo-Galva ́n 2006, p. 133; 

Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 2008, p. 2). Some 

wild populations of the Morelet’s 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23673 

crocodile in Belize also have greater 

proportions of males than females (5.3 

males per 1 female), but seem to be 

healthy (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 

2000a, p. 23). We do not have any 

evidence that skewed sex ratios 

currently pose a threat to the species. 

Although skewed sex ratios may 

represent a potential threat, especially 

given the potential for skewed sex ratios 

as a result of climate change, this 

information is not sufficient to be able 

to judge the timing of this potential, i.e., 

that it will manifest within the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, we do not 

have any information to indicate that it 

is likely to become a threat in the 

foreseeable future. 

Natural Weather Events 

Natural weather can affect the 

Morelet’s crocodile. Hurricanes or heavy 

seasonal rains, for example, may pose 

risks to Morelet’s crocodile eggs located 

in nests along water channels. Flooding 

associated with hurricanes or rains, 

however, may also provide conservation 

benefits to the Morelet’s crocodile by 

facilitating movements of individuals 

across the landscape, thereby promoting 

gene flow (CITES 2010a, p. 6). 

Furthermore, extended dry periods can 

result in the temporary disappearance of 

ephemeral water bodies, with 

concomitant increases in Morelet’s 

crocodile densities and intraspecific 

interactions at nearby sites that still 

have water. There is no evidence, 

however, that natural weather 

conditions have been a problem for the 

Morelet’s crocodile, which has adapted 

to these weather conditions. Therefore, 

we have no reason to believe that 

natural weather events are currently 

likely to cause the Morelet’s crocodile to 

become in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

any significant portion of its range. 

Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 

warming of the climate system is 

unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. 30) and sea 

levels are expected to rise well into the 

foreseeable future (Bates et al. 2008, pp. 

20 and 28–29). Numerous long-term 

changes have been observed including 

changes in arctic temperatures and ice, 

widespread changes in precipitation 

amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, 

and aspects of extreme weather 

including droughts, heavy precipitation, 

heat waves, and the intensity of tropical 

cyclones (IPCC 2007b, p. 7). Based on 

scenarios that do not assume explicit 

climate policies to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions, global average 

temperature is projected to rise by 

2–11.5 °F by the end of this century 

(relative to the 1980–1999 time period) 

(USGCRP 2011, p. 9). Species that are 

dependent on specialized habitat types, 

limited in distribution, or occurring 

already at the extreme periphery of their 

range will be most susceptible to the 

impacts of climate change. While 

continued change is certain, the 

magnitude and rate of change is 

unknown in many cases. 

The information currently available 

on the effects of climate change and the 

available climate change models do not 

make sufficiently accurate estimates of 

location and magnitude of effects at a 

scale small enough to apply to the range 

of the Morelet’s crocodile. We do not 

have any information on the projected 

impacts to the Morelet’s crocodile 

because of climate change, particularly 

the potential impacts of shifting global 

temperatures on sex ratios. The study by 

Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 2008 regarding 

climate change’s projected impacts to 

the American crocodile illustrates the 

possible impacts to the Morelet’s 

crocodile. This study, entitled ‘‘Potential 

effects of climate change on the sex ratio 

of crocodiles’’ (Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 

2008), was presented at the February 

2008 International Science Symposium: 

Climate Change and Diversity in the 

Americas. The study selected several 

areas in Florida and western Mexico 

that contain American crocodiles, and 

used the current environmental 

information for these areas to predict 

how increased temperatures would 

affect the potential geographical 

distribution and sex ratios of the species 

in Florida, the Caribbean, and Central 

America. 

Based on a preliminary analysis 

(focusing on the geographic distribution 

and sex ratios of American crocodiles in 

the present, 2020, and 2050), EscobedoGalva ́n et al. (2008) postulated that the 

geographic distribution and sex ratios of 

American crocodile populations in 

different parts of the range would 

change in response to temperature and 

sea level parameters. Crocodiles are 

ectothermic, relying on external sources 

of heat to regulate their body 

temperature. They control their body 

temperature by basking in the sun, or 

moving to areas with warmer or cooler 

air or water temperatures. Optimal 

growth in crocodilians has been found 

to occur around 88 °F (31 °C), with 

appetites and effective digestion 

diminishing below 84 °F (29 °C) (Brien 

et al. 2007, p. 15). As the global 

temperatures increase, areas that are 

currently too cool to support American 

and Morelet’s crocodiles may become 

warm enough to support them in the 

future. According to Escobedo-Galva ́n et 

al. 2008, increased global temperatures 

and sea level would benefit the 

American crocodile by significantly 

increasing its potential habitat and 

distribution. Their study predicted that 

the current potential distribution for the 

American crocodile would expand 69 

percent in 2020 and 207 percent in 

2050. This is an 81 percent increase in 

potential distribution from 2020 to 2050 

(Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 2008, 

presentation, pp. 9–10). 

The study also predicted that 

increased global temperatures would 

have a significantly negative impact on 

the sex ratios of the American crocodile. 

Like many other crocodilian species, 

both the American and the Morelet’s 

crocodile exhibit temperaturedependent sex determination. The 

macroclimate (global climate) affects the 

mesoclimate (the temperature outside of 

a crocodile’s nest), which in turn affects 

the microclimate (the temperature 

inside of a crocodile’s nest), which in 

turn determines the proportion of males 

to females produced in the nest 

(Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 2008, 

presentation p. 4). Incubation 

temperatures greater than about 93 °F 

(34 °C) or less than 90 °F (32 °C) 

produce females while temperatures 

between 90–93 °F (32–34 °C) generally 

produce males (Escobedo-Galva ́n 2006, 

p. 133; Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 2008, p. 

2). Thus, the production of males is 

entirely dependent upon a sustained 

incubation temperature range of only 

three degrees. Incubation temperatures 

greater than 97 °F (36 °C) are at the 

upper end of the tolerance range for 

reptile eggs and result in death of 

embryos and stress to the surviving 

hatchlings (Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 2008, 

presentation, p. 2). 

According to Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 

2008, the current sex ratio of the 

American crocodile favors females 

(based on potential species 

distribution): 75 percent of the potential 

species distribution has fewer males 

than females, 15 percent has an equal 

number of males and females, and 10 

percent has more males than females. 

The study predicted that by 2020, the 

sex ratio is expected to shift in favor of 

males due to increases in nest 

temperature as a result of climate 

change: 24 percent of the potential 

species distribution will have fewer 

males than females, 16 percent will 

have an equal number of males and 

females, and 60 percent will have more 

males than females (Escobedo-Galva ́n et 

al. 2008, presentation, pp. 11–12). 

Under this scenario, the number of 

females produced will be reduced 

significantly by 2020, which in turn will 

reduce the overall total eggs laid in each 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

breeding season. Of the eggs laid, more 

are likely to become males, which in 

turn would further reduce the number 

of breeding females produced over time. 

Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 2008 predicted 

that by 2050, American crocodiles 

would become extinct in Florida, the 

Caribbean, or Central America 

(Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 2008, 

presentation p. 13). 

Although American crocodiles are 

found primarily in saline and brackish 

environments, they can also be found in 

abandoned coastal canals and borrow 

pits and may range inland into 

freshwater environments preferred by 

Morelet’s crocodiles such as lakes and 

lower reaches of large rivers. American 

crocodiles are extremely adaptable in 

their nesting strategy, and while they 

mainly nest in holes, individuals will 

readily build mound nests if suitable 

materials are available. American and 

Morelet’s crocodiles have been known 

to lay eggs within the same nest mound 

as conspecifics, suggesting a more 

gregarious and tolerant demeanor (Brien 

et al. 2007, pp. 17–18). Sea level rise 

would significantly expand the amount 

of inland saline and brackish coastal 

habitat available to the American 

crocodile, and correspondingly decrease 

the amount of inland freshwater habitat 

available to the Morelet’s crocodile. The 

area of available land would also be 

reduced as a result of sea level rise, 

further increasing competition between 

the two species for terrestrial activities 

such as nesting and basking on the 

shoreline. 

The study by Escobedo-Galva ́n et al. 

2008 did not provide any information or 

data on the effects of climate change on 

the Morelet’s crocodile. Although the 

American crocodile and Morelet’s 

crocodile have overlapping ranges, 

similar life-history requirements, and 

may lay eggs in the same nest, we do not 

have any evidence that climate change 

currently poses a threat to the Morelet’s 

crocodile. Although climate change may 

represent a potential threat to the 

Morelet’s crocodile, especially given the 

crocodilian requirement for temperature 

dependent sex determination, we do not 

have any data to indicate that it is likely 

to become a threat in the foreseeable 

future. We are seeking information and 

data on the effects of climate change on 

the Morelet’s crocodile as part of this 

proposed rule. 

Other Potential Concerns 

Other information obtained by the 

Service, however, suggests that the 

construction and operation of dams to 

generate electricity could be a 

conservation threat to the Morelet’s 

crocodile (for example, the Chalillo 

hydroelectric dam in Belize on the 

Macal River, an area inhabited by the 

Morelet’s crocodile (Environment News 

Service 2004, p. 1; Hogan 2008, p. 2). At 

the national level, six main 

environmental issues affecting natural 

resources have been identified for 

Belize: (1) High deforestation rate; 

(2) solid and liquid waste management 

issues; (3) rising poverty rates; (4) rapid 

coastal development; (5) ineffective 

institution and legal frameworks; and 

(6) oil discovery (Young 2008, p. 18). 

We do not have any information to 

indicate the extent of the impact, if any, 

that these environmental issues may 

have on the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Belize. There is no evidence that these 

environmental issues in Belize currently 

pose a threat to the species. Although 

they may represent a potential threat, 

we do not have any data to indicate that 

it is likely to become a threat in the 

foreseeable future 

There has been some information 

indicating that fishing nets (for fish and 

turtles) and death by drowning as 

threats to the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Guatemala, but we do not have 

information regarding specific rates of 

injury or mortality (CITES 2008a, page). 

CONABIO (2005, p. 27) suggested that 

the number of crocodiles accidentally 

captured in nets in Guatemala was low, 

but the basis for this claim was unclear. 

Platt and Thorbjarnarson (2000b, p. 27) 

noted that ‘‘a limited number of 

crocodiles’’ drown in fish and turtle nets 

in northern Belize each year. There is no 

evidence that fishing currently poses a 

threat to the species. Although it may 

represent a potential threat, we do not 

have any data to indicate that it is likely 

to become a threat in the foreseeable 

future. 

Summary of Factor E 

Few, if any, natural or manmade 

factors are anticipated to affect the 

continued existence of the Morelet’s 

crocodile. While natural factors such as 

hurricanes and extended dry seasons 

(CONABIO 2005, p. 32) may affect the 

species, we believe that the species has 

evolved with these kinds of events and 

they do not pose a threat to the species. 

Several phenomena are categorized 

here as other natural or manmade 

factors that were considered as 

potentially affecting the conservation 

status of the Morelet’s crocodile in the 

foreseeable future. Our knowledge about 

these factors is incomplete and uneven 

among the three range countries. 

Environmental contaminants, especially 

DDE and mercury, have been widely 

reported for Belize. To date, however, 

there is no evidence of negative effects 

to the Morelet’s crocodile due to 

exposure to organochlorines even 

though these contaminants have been 

linked to documented adverse effects on 

population health in a similar species, 

the American alligator. 

Vitellogenin induction in males, 

suggesting endocrine disruption due to 

environmental contamination, is 

predicted in Belize, but has not been 

documented. These factors do not 

appear to pose a conservation threat to 

the Morelet’s crocodile in Belize at this 

time. Information about environmental 

contaminants in Mexico and Guatemala 

with regard to the Morelet’s crocodile is 

limited. Potential environmental 

contaminant issues with respect to the 

Morelet’s crocodile probably are the 

least well known in Mexico, but that 

country has an extensive legal 

framework to resolve any problems that 

may develop, especially if contaminants 

also become a public health issue. We 

do not have any information to indicate 

that environmental contaminants pose a 

danger to the species throughout its 

range. Although environmental 

contaminants may represent a potential 

threat, especially given the potential for 

bioaccumulation of contaminants 

during the species’ long reproductive 

life, we do not have any data to indicate 

that it is likely to become a threat to the 

species in the foreseeable future. 

Bycatch in fishing nets has been 

mentioned as a potential problem in 

Guatemala. In Belize, a ‘‘limited number 

of crocodiles’’ may die or be injured in 

nets (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 

27), while information about the 

potential negative effects of fishing nets 

on the Morelet’s crocodile in Mexico is 

limited. Overall, these local impacts do 

not appear to have any significant 

impact on Morelet’s crocodiles. 

Although it may represent a potential 

threat, we do not have any data to 

indicate that it is likely to become a 

threat in the foreseeable future. 

Genetic diversity and integrity is a 

relatively complicated subject with 

respect to the Morelet’s crocodile, and 

our knowledge across the three range 

countries is uneven. Studies in Belize 

suggest that wild populations in that 

country have a high degree of genetic 

diversity (Dever and Densmore 2001, 

pp. 543–544; Dever et al. 2002, p. 1084). 

Hybridization between the Morelet’s 

crocodile and the American crocodile 

has been documented for eastern Belize 

and the eastern and northern coasts of 

the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico (Ray et 

al. 2004, p. 440; Ceden ̃ o-Va ́zquez et al. 

2008, p. 661; Rodriguez et al. 2008, p. 

674). The nature and extent of genetic 

variation of captive-bred populations 

with respect to wild populations, as 

well as male-biased sex ratios, are also 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23675 

poorly understood issues, but 

potentially important in Mexico where 

captive-bred individuals may eventually 

be released into the wild. There is no 

indication, however, that the Morelet’s 

crocodile suffers from any genetic 

limitations throughout its range. 

Natural weather events do not appear 

to have any population level impacts to 

the Morelet’s crocodile, which has 

evolved to thrive in this climate. We do 

not have any evidence that climate 

change poses a threat to the species. 

Although climate change may represent 

a potential threat, especially given the 

crocodilian requirement for temperature 

dependent sex determination, we do not 

have any data to indicate that it is likely 

to become a threat in the foreseeable 

future. 

Although some local factors continue 

to affect the Morelet’s crocodile, we do 

not have any information to indicate 

that these factors are of sufficient 

magnitude to affect any population of 

the Morelet’s crocodile. In conclusion, 

we find that other natural and manmade 

factors are not a significant factor 

affecting the Morelet’s crocodile 

throughout its range, both now and for 

the foreseeable future. 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and have determined that the Morelet’s 

crocodile is no longer endangered or 

threatened throughout all of its range. 

When considering the listing status of 

the species, the first step in the analysis 

is to determine whether the species is in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

endangered throughout all of its range. 

For instance, if the threats on a species 

are acting only on a portion of its range, 

but the effects of the threats are such 

that they do not place the entire species 

in danger of extinction or likely to 

become endangered, we would not 

retain the entire species on the list. 

In developing this proposed rule, we 

have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

regarding the threats facing this species, 

as well as the ongoing conservation 

efforts by the three range countries. This 

information indicates that numbers of 

Morelet’s crocodiles have significantly 

increased over the past four decades 

since being categorized as depleted by 

species experts in the 1970s. In Mexico 

and Belize, the species is broadly 

distributed geographically, essentially 

occupying the entire historical range, 

and age classes reflect healthy 

reproduction and recruitment into a 

wild breeding population of about 

10,000–20,000 adults (Ross 2000, p. 3; 

CONABIO 2005, p. 19). 

We have identified a number of 

potential threats to the Morelet’s 

crocodile. Some of these potential 

threats may directly or indirectly affect 

individual Morelet’s crocodiles, while 

others may affect Morelet’s crocodile 

habitat. The contributions of these 

potential threats, identified in the 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species sections above are discussed in 

approximate descending magnitude of 

impact in the foreseeable future: 

(1) A continuation of wild harvest for 

ranching may pose a threat to the 

species if the countries decide to change 

course. However, if conducted in 

compliance with CITES, the ranching 

would have to be non-detrimental for 

the specimens to enter international 

trade. Our assessment of the risk 

associated with this potential threat is 

based primarily on the demonstrated 

adverse effects of past overharvest on 

populations. Additional monitoring 

programs and adequate regulatory 

mechanisms would need to be 

established prior to legalizing ranching. 

Such mechanisms would be important 

to prevent the laundering of illegally 

harvested Morelet’s crocodiles. We find 

that, taken together, the currently 

existing protections (described above in 

the Factor D section, Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms) are 

adequate, and they will remain adequate 

to protect the Morelet’s crocodile and its 

habitat in the majority of its range now 

and within the foreseeable future if this 

proposed rule is finalized and the 

protections of the Act are removed. 

(2) The detection of organic and 

inorganic environmental contaminants 

in Morelet’s crocodile eggs in Belize 

indicates that impacts from 

concentrations of environmental 

contaminants may represent a potential 

threat because Morelet’s crocodiles have 

a long lifespan and remain 

reproductively active once they attain 

sexual maturity. However, there is no 

evidence that environmental 

contaminants are currently affecting 

populations (numbers and reproduction 

appear to be robust). In order to 

determine that environmental 

contaminants may be a threat to the 

Morelet’s crocodile in the future, their 

presence in the environment must be 

occurring at a level that affects the longterm population levels over at least a 

significant portion of the range of the 

species. We know of no ongoing 

monitoring of environmental 

contaminants anywhere in the species’ 

range. Although 45 articles within the 

Mexican LGEEPA deal with 

environmental contamination 

(CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 1), we 

have not received a detailed analysis of 

the specific provisions and their 

relevance to Morelet’s crocodile. We are 

unaware of regulatory mechanisms 

governing activities that discharge 

environmental contaminants that 

potentially affect Morelet’s crocodile in 

Belize. However, we do not have any 

data to indicate that environmental 

contaminants are likely to become a 

threat in the foreseeable future. 

(3) Although habitat loss and 

degradation continues to negatively 

affect the habitat for some local 

populations of the Morelet’s crocodile, 

we do not have any information to 

indicate that it is of sufficient 

magnitude to have a range-wide impact 

on the species to the point that would 

cause the Morelet’s crocodile to meet 

the definition of either an endangered or 

a threatened species. The species’ 

relatively wide distribution throughout 

its historical range and apparent 

tolerance for habitats in proximity to 

agriculture, grazing, and human 

habitation are substantial factors 

mitigating these impacts to Morelet’s 

crocodiles over the next several 

decades. We anticipate that these 

conditions will remain essentially the 

same in the foreseeable future due to the 

adequate regulatory mechanisms in 

place to protect suitable habitat for the 

Morelet’s crocodile in the majority of its 

range (see discussion above under the 

Factor D., Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms, section). 

The Morelet’s crocodile continues to 

be affected by a variety of potential 

residual threats. It is likely that 

development, hurricanes and other 

storm events, random human 

disturbance, fishery activities, oil spills, 

and infestation by parasites will 

continue to impact individual 

crocodiles into the future. Although 

these impacts are generally expected to 

continue intermittently at low levels 

into the foreseeable future, we do not 

expect these impacts to affect 

significantly the Morelet’s crocodile to 

the point that it would result in declines 

in the range-wide status of the species. 

Although some potential threats to the 

Morelet’s crocodile remain throughout 

its range, as discussed above, they are at 

a low enough level such that they are 

not having a significant population level 

or demographic effect on Morelet’s 

crocodile populations in Mexico and 

Belize, in fact, most populations are 

stable and/or increasing and still occur 

in their historic range. Any low level 

threats occurring in Guatemala are 

currently being addressed by the 

Guatemalan national and provincial 

governments with the help of the local 

and international NGO community. We 

do not believe, based on the best 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

available information, that the extent of 

potential threats to the species in 

Guatemala, even if they increase will 

cause the Morelet’s crocodile to become 

threatened or endangered in the future. 

The government of Guatemala 

recognizes the importance of this and 

other landscape species in the 

Guatemalan Maya Biosphere and are 

implementing regulatory and 

enforcement controls to combat human 

encroachment, land clearing, fires and 

other illegal activities that may pose a 

threat to these species. In addition, 

Guatemala’s request to keep 

Guatemala’s populations of Morelet’s 

crocodile in Appendix I attests to their 

commitment to ensure trade does not 

affect Guatemala’s wild Morelet’s 

crocodile populations. 

Having determined that the Morelet’s 

crocodile is no longer endangered or 

threatened throughout its range, we 

must next determine if the threats to the 

Morelet’s crocodile are non-uniformly 

distributed such that populations in one 

portion of its range experience higher 

level of threats that populations in other 

portions of its range. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Section 4(c)(1) of the Act requires the 

Service to determine whether a portion 

of a species’ range, if not all, meets the 

definition of endangered or threatened. 

A portion of a species’ range is 

significant if it is part of the current 

range of the species and it contributes 

substantially to the representation, 

resiliency, or redundancy of the species. 

The contribution must be at a level such 

that its loss would result in a decrease 

in the ability to conserve the species. In 

other words, in considering 

significance, the Service asks whether 

the loss of this portion likely would 

eventually move the species towards 

extinction, but not to the point where 

the species should be listed as 

threatened or endangered throughout all 

of its range. 

We evaluated the Morelet’s 

crocodile’s range in the context of 

whether any potential threats are 

concentrated in a portion of its range 

such that if there were concentrated 

impacts, that crocodile population 

might be in danger of extinction. We 

further evaluated whether any such 

population or complex might constitute 

a significant portion of the species 

range. 

Guatemala’s Contribution to 

Representation, Resiliency, or 

Redundancy of the Species 

As part of the SPR analysis, we look 

to see, in terms of species or habitat, if 

Guatemala contributes substantially to 

the representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the Morelet’s crocodile 

species. 

Resiliency of a species allows the 

species to recover from periodic 

disturbance. A species will likely be 

more resilient if large populations exist 

in high-quality habitat distributed 

throughout the range of the species in 

such a way as to capture the 

environmental variability found within 

the range of the species. It is likely that 

the larger size of a population will help 

contribute to the viability of the species 

overall. Thus, a portion of a range of a 

species may make a meaningful 

contribution to the resiliency of the 

species if the area is relatively large and 

contains particularly high-quality 

habitat or if its location or 

characteristics make it less susceptible 

to certain threats than other portions of 

the range. When evaluating whether or 

how a portion of the range contributes 

to the resiliency of the species, it may 

help to evaluate the historical value of 

the portion of the range and how 

frequently the portion is used by the 

species. In addition, the range may 

contribute to the resiliency for other 

reasons—for instance, it may contain an 

important concentration of certain types 

of habitat that are necessary for the 

species to carry out its life history 

functions, such as breeding, feeding, 

migration, dispersal or wintering. 

Guatemala comprises a small portion 

of the overall range of the Morelet’s 

crocodile. The estimated number of 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Guatemala is 

13% of the potential global population 

estimate. The extent of undisturbed 

habitat in Guatemala is estimated to be 

19% of the total range estimate 

(CONABIO 2005, pp. 16–19). Past 

resource extraction, drug trade, a lack of 

enforcement, and financial issues 

limited Guatemala’s protected areas’ 

potential contribution to the 

conservation status of the species 

(IARNA URL IIA 2006, pp. 88–92), 

causing habitat loss, habitat 

degradation, habitat fragmentation, 

overutilization of resources, 

environmental contamination, and the 

introduction of exotic species. These 

past threats may have lowered the 

quality of habitat available to Morelet’s 

crocodile. In addition, Morelet’s 

crocodile habitat consists of flooded 

savannahs and marshes that are typical 

of the species habitat throughout its 

range, but are not representative of the 

environmental variability found within 

the total range of the species. The 

species’ range, specifically Laguna del 

Tigre National Park, was in the past 

more susceptible to certain threats. The 

small size of the Guatemalan portion of 

the Morelet’s crocodile’s range; the 

small population size of the species in 

Guatemala; and the past threats that 

affected the quality of the habitat limits 

Guatemala’s contribution to resiliency. 

Therefore, we find that the population 

of the Morelet’s crocodile in Guatemala 

does not significantly contribute to the 

resiliency of the species. 

Redundancy of populations may be 

needed to provide a margin of safety for 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. This does not mean that any 

portion that provides redundancy is a 

significant portion of the range of the 

species. The idea is to conserve enough 

areas of the range such that random 

perturbations in the system act on only 

a few populations. Therefore, each area 

must be examined based on whether 

that area provides an increment of 

redundancy that is important to the 

conservation of the species. 

Morelet’s crocodile distribution in the 

northern State of Pete ́n, Guatemala has 

been described as fragmented, with the 

healthiest populations in the northern 

region of Pete ́n, where human impact 

was lower (Castan ̃ eda Moya 1997, p. 1; 

1998a, p. 521). While Guatemala has 

regulatory mechanisms in place to 

protect their national parks, it appears 

that the Government of Guatemala, until 

recently, was not able to enforce them 

adequately. Although Guatemala has 

conserved several areas of the Morelet’s 

crocodile’s range, past threats limited 

their potential contribution to the 

conservation of the species (IARNA URL 

IIA 2006, pp. 88–92). The idea is to 

conserve enough areas of the range such 

that random perturbations in the system 

act on only a few populations, however, 

Guatemala has been unable in the past 

to adequately conserve Morelet’s 

habitat. Thus we conclude that the 

population of the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Guatemala does not significantly 

contribute to the redundancy of the 

species. 

Representation ensures that the 

species’ adaptive capabilities are 

conserved. Specifically, the portion 

should be evaluated to see how it 

contributes to the genetic, 

morphological, physiological, 

behavioral, or ecological diversity of the 

species. A substantial contribution to 

the representation includes populations 

or portions of the range that are 

markedly genetically divergent, occur in 

a unique or unusual ecological setting, 

or have unique morphological, 

physiological, or behavioral 

characteristics. The loss of genetically 

based diversity or unique adaptations 

may substantially reduce the ability of 

the species to respond and adapt to 

future environmental changes. For 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23677 

example, a peripheral population may 

contribute meaningfully to 

representation if there is evidence that 

it provides genetic diversity due to its 

location on the margin of the species 

habitat requirements. Morphological, 

physiological, and behavioral diversity 

across the range of the species may also 

indicate adaptations to environmental 

variation or genetically based 

differences, and therefore should be 

considered when evaluating a portion’s 

contribution to representation. 

We could not find any data or 

information that the Morelet’s crocodile 

in Guatemala is ecologically unusual, 

unique, or otherwise significant to the 

species as a whole in any way (for 

example, in terms of species or habitat). 

Morelet’s crocodile habitat consists of 

flooded savannahs and marshes that are 

typical of the species habitat throughout 

its range. In addition, we have no 

information indicating that the 

Guatemala population is genetically 

different from the remainder of the 

range. We therefore conclude that the 

range of the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Guatemala does not significantly 

contribute to the representation of the 

species. 

Because the Morelet’s crocodile’s 

range in Guatemala does not contribute 

significantly towards the resiliency, 

redundancy or representation of the 

species, we do not consider Guatemala 

to be a significant portion of the range 

of the species. 

Finding 

The PVA conducted by Sanchez 

(Sa ́nchez 2005) suggests the long-term 

prognosis for the survival and genetic 

diversity of the Morelet’s crocodile 

throughout its range is very good, 

estimating that the average time to reach 

the quasi-extinction threshold of 500 

individuals being 483 years (Sa ́nchez 

2005, pp. 43–51). Under the PVA, the 

probability of survival of a population of 

30,000 individuals, subject to highstress conditions is approximately 86 

percent, and maintaining their genetic 

diversity is approximately 99 percent. 

A species is ‘‘endangered’’ for 

purposes of the Act if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range and is ‘‘threatened’’ 

if it is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The word ‘‘range’’ is used here to refer 

to the range in which the species 

currently exists, and the word 

‘‘significant’’ refers to the value of that 

portion of the range being considered to 

the conservation of the species. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future.’’ However, in a 

January 16, 2009, memorandum 

addressed to the Acting Director of the 

Service from the Office of the Solicitor, 

Department of the Interior, concluded, 

‘‘* * * as used in the [Act], Congress 

intended the term ‘foreseeable future’ to 

describe the extent to which the 

Secretary can reasonably rely on 

predictions about the future in making 

determinations about the future 

conservation status of the species’’ (U.S. 

Department of the Interior 2009, page 1). 

‘‘Foreseeable future’’ is determined by 

the Service on a case-by-case basis, 

taking into consideration a variety of 

species-specific factors such as lifespan, 

genetics, mating systems, demography, 

threat projection timeframes, and 

environmental variability. 

In considering the foreseeable future 

as it relates to the status of the Morelet’s 

crocodile, we defined the ‘‘foreseeable 

future’’ to be the extent to which, given 

the amount and substance of available 

data, events or effects can and should be 

anticipated, or the threats reasonably 

extrapolated. We considered the 

historical data to identify any relevant 

threats acting on the species, ongoing 

conservation efforts, data on species 

abundance and persistence at individual 

sites since the time of listing, and 

identifiable informational gaps and 

uncertainties regarding residual and 

emerging threats to the species, as well 

as population status and trends. We 

then looked to see if reliable predictions 

about the status of the species in 

response to those factors could be 

drawn. We considered the historical 

data to identify any relevant existing 

trends that might allow for reliable 

prediction of the future, in the form of 

extrapolating the trends. We also 

considered whether we could reliably 

predict any future events, not yet acting 

on the species and, therefore, not yet 

manifested in a trend, that might affect 

the status of the species, recognizing 

that our ability to make reliable 

predictions into the future is limited by 

the variable quantity and quality of 

available data. Following a range-wide 

threats analysis, we evaluated whether 

the Morelet’s crocodile is endangered or 

threatened in any significant portion(s) 

of its range. 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

Morelet’s crocodile is threatened or 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, comments and 

information received after the 

publication of our 90-day finding (71 FR 

36743), and other available published 

and unpublished information, and 

consulted with recognized experts. We 

have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the Morelet’s crocodile. 

This status review found that although 

some localized impacts to individual 

Morelet’s crocodiles still occur, such as 

habitat loss from agricultural 

development, they have been reduced 

enough so as to not impact the species 

on a population level. In addition to the 

five-factor analysis, we also considered 

the progress made by the range 

countries towards addressing previous 

threats to Morelet’s crocodiles. We took 

into consideration the conservation 

actions that have occurred, are ongoing, 

and are planned. Since listing, the 

species’ status has improved because of 

the following: 

• National and international laws and 

treaties have minimized the impacts of 

hunting and trade in wild-caught 

specimens. 

• Morelet’s crocodile populations are 

stable or increasing. 

• Total population size is 

approximately 19,400 adults in the three 

range countries. 

• Species experts now widely 

characterize Morelet’s crocodile 

populations as healthy. 

• The current range-wide distribution 

of Morelet’s crocodile now closely 

resembles historical range-wide 

distribution 

• Range countries have improved 

efforts to protect and manage Morelet’s 

crocodile habitat. 

• The long-term prognosis for the 

survival and genetic diversity of the 

Morelet’s crocodile throughout its range 

is very good 

In sum, the ongoing development and 

updating of management plans, the 

active management of habitat, the 

ongoing research, and the protections 

provided by laws and protected lands 

provide compelling evidence that 

recovery actions are successful. 

The primary factor that led to the 

listing of the Morelet’s crocodile was 

trade. However, the trend today is 

towards increasing population sizes, 

with trade restricted to captive-bred 

specimens only. We find that the 

localized impacts identified in the three 

range countries, when combined with 

the increase in population sizes, 

ongoing active research and 

management, and protections provided 

by range countries, those impacts are 

not of sufficient imminence, intensity, 

or magnitude to indicate that the 

Morelet’s crocodile is threatened with 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future. Consequently, we have 

determined that Morelet’s crocodile 

should be removed from the list of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants. 

Distinct Vertebrate Population 

Segments 

Section 3(15) of the Act defines 

‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any species or 

subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature (16 

U.S.C. 1532(16)). After assessing 

whether or not the Morelet’s crocodile 

is endangered or threatened throughout 

its range, we next consider whether a 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

(DPS) of the Morelet’s crocodile meets 

the definition of endangered or is likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future (threatened). 

To interpret and implement the DPS 

provisions of the Act and congressional 

guidance, the Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (now the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration—Fisheries Service), 

published the Policy Regarding the 

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments (DPS Policy) in 

the Federal Register on February 7, 

1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the DPS 

Policy, we evaluate a set of elements in 

a three-step process in order to make 

our decision concerning the 

establishment and classification of a 

possible DPS. These elements are 

applied similarly for additions to or 

removals from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. 

These elements include: (1) The 

discreteness of a population in relation 

to the remainder of the taxon to which 

it belongs; (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the taxon to 

which it belongs; and (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation 

to the Act’s standards for listing 

(addition to the list), delisting (removal 

from the list), or reclassification (i.e., is 

the population segment endangered or 

threatened). 

First, the Policy requires the Service 

to determine that a vertebrate 

population is discrete in relation to the 

remainder of the taxon to which it 

belongs. Discreteness refers to the 

ability to delineate a population 

segment from other members of a taxon 

based on either (1) Physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral 

factors, or (2) international 

governmental boundaries that result in 

significant differences in control of 

exploitation, management, or habitat 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms that are significant in light 

of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act—the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Second, if we determine that the 

population is discrete under one or 

more of the discreteness conditions, 

then a determination is made as to 

whether the population is significant to 

the larger taxon to which it belongs in 

light of Congressional guidance (see 

Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st 

Session) that the authority to list DPSs 

be used ‘‘sparingly and only when the 

biological evidence indicates that such 

action is warranted.’’ In carrying out this 

examination, we consider available 

scientific evidence of the population’s 

importance to the taxon to which it 

belongs. This consideration may 

include, but is not limited to the 

following: (1) The persistence of the 

population segment in an ecological 

setting that is unique or unusual for the 

taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon; 

(3) evidence that the population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere as an 

introduced population outside of its 

historic range; and (4) evidence that the 

discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics 

from other populations of the species. A 

population segment needs to satisfy 

only one of these conditions to be 

considered significant. 

Lastly, if we determine that the 

population is both discrete and 

significant, then the Policy requires an 

analysis of the population segment’s 

conservation status in relation to the 

Act’s standards for listing (addition to 

the list), delisting (removal from the 

list), or reclassification (i.e., is the 

population segment endangered or 

threatened). 

Discreteness 

The first step in our DPS analysis for 

the Morelet’s crocodile was to 

determine whether there were any 

populations of the Morelet’s crocodile 

that were discrete in relation to the 

remainder of the taxon to which it 

belongs. Under the DPS Policy, a 

population segment of a vertebrate 

taxon may be considered discrete if it 

satisfies either one of the following 

conditions: (1) It is markedly separated 

from other populations of the same 

taxon because of physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral 

factors. Quantitative measures of genetic 

or morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation; or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act—the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

Recognition of international boundaries 

when they coincide with differences in 

the management, status, or exploitation 

of the species under the Act is 

consistent with CITES, which 

recognizes international boundaries for 

these same reasons. CITES is 

implemented in the United States by the 

Act. 

Physical, Physiological, Ecological, or 

Behavioral Factors 

We do not have any data or 

information to indicate that there are 

any physical, physiological, ecological, 

or behavioral facts that separate any 

populations of the Morelet’s crocodile. 

The historical distribution of the 

Morelet’s crocodile comprised the 

eastern coastal plain of Mexico, most of 

the Yucatan Peninsula, Belize, and 

northern Guatemala (Hurley 2005, p. 1), 

with an estimated historical distribution 

covering 173,746 mi2 (450,000 km2) 

(Sigler and Domı ́nguez Laso 2008, pp. 

11–12). The Morelet’s crocodile is a 

wide-ranging species that occurs 

primarily in freshwater environments 

such as lakes, swamps, and slowmoving rivers. This species of crocodile 

can temporarily inhabit intermittent 

freshwater bodies such as flooded 

savannahs and is occasionally observed 

in brackish coastal lagoons (Villegas 

2006, p. 8). 

We do not have any data or 

information to indicate that any 

populations of the Morelet’s crocodile 

exhibit genetic or morphological 

discontinuity that may indicate that 

they are a separate population. 

Although we do not have any data or 

information on the dispersal strategies 

for the Morelet’s crocodile that would 

indicate a population may be discrete, 

we have no evidence to suggest that 

there are barriers that would prevent the 

Morelet’s crocodile from dispersing 

within its known range. The current 

range-wide distribution of the Morelet’s 

crocodile closely mirrors the historical 

range-wide distribution, and there are 

large amount of high quality of habitat 

available. Therefore, we have no 

evidence suggesting that the Morelet’s 

crocodile is isolated in any part of its 

range. 

International Differences in Species’ 

Conservation Status 

As discussed above in the Factor D 

section, Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms, all three range 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23679 

countries are Parties to CITES. In 

addition, data and information available 

to the Service indicates that all three 

range countries have Federally 

protected-species and protected-areas 

legislation under the jurisdiction of 

specific ministries or departments that 

control activities that affect the 

Morelet’s crocodile and its habitat. 

Mexico’s Federal legal framework is 

particularly robust. The CITES National 

Legislation Project (http:// 

www.CITES.org) deemed both Mexico 

and Guatemala’s national legislation as 

Category 1, meeting all the requirements 

to implement CITES, with Belize in 

Category 3 (not meeting the 

requirements for implementing CITES), 

but having submitted a national 

legislation plan and draft of legislation 

that has not yet been adopted. 

Based on current data and 

information available to the Service, the 

Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, and 

Belize appear to be adequately enforcing 

their respective legal frameworks, both 

at the Federal level and under CITES. 

Mexico and Belize contain the majority 

of wild Morelet’s crocodiles (87 percent) 

and the majority of the potentially 

suitable habitat (81 percent) throughout 

the species’ range. Because of this 

adequate enforcement, the majority of 

the threats to the species and its habitat 

have been eliminated in Mexico and 

Belize. Although some residual threats 

remain, these threats have been reduced 

to a low enough level that they are not 

having significant population level or 

demographic effects. 

In contrast, based on data and 

information available to the Service, it 

appears that in the past, the Government 

of Guatemala was not able to enforce 

adequately their legal framework to 

protect the Morelet’s crocodile and its 

habitat in Guatemala. The lack of 

funding and personnel made 

enforcement of Guatemala’s legal 

framework especially challenging. 

Conservation actions were often 

overwhelmed by slow economic 

development, high levels of poverty, 

unequal land distribution, a highly 

segmented society, and the effects of 

more than three decades of civil war 

(Birner et al. 2005, pp. 285, 292). 

For example, per ParkWatch (2003) 

noted that a designation as a national 

park or important wetland conservation 

area in Guatemala does not necessarily 

afford protection to the Morelet’s 

crocodile or its habitat. The Laguna del 

Tigre National Park, located in Pete ́n 

region of Guatemala, is home to the 

largest population of Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Guatemala. The park was 

considered by ParkWatch as critically 

threatened due to land grabs, the 

presence of human settlements, 

expanding agriculture and cattle 

ranching, poaching, forest fires, the oil 

industry, and almost complete lack of 

institutional control over the area 

(ParksWatch 2003, pp. 1, 11). However, 

by 2004, ParksWatch stated that the staff 

at Laguna del Tigre had doubled in size 

since their 2003 report. Seventy-three 

park rangers, 10 archeological site 

guards and 96 Army personnel were 

hired to staff the park and since the 

increase in staffing, both the park and 

the biotope are ‘‘constantly patrolled.’’ In 

addition, the WCS continued its 

‘‘Biodiversity Conservation at a 

Landscape Scale’’ program (with USAID) 

for Guatemala and has provided a 

comprehensive plan with specific goals 

to preserve and protect wildlife in the 

Maya Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala 

through conserving wildlife species and 

their habitat, while maintaining the 

economic productivity of renewable 

natural resources. They are fulfilling 

these goals by establishing specific 

parameters. Namely, ‘‘to develop 

adaptive and participatory strategy to 

reduce threats to wildlife in the MBR; to 

develop, implement and monitor 

sustainable mechanisms to reduce 

threats to wildlife and ecosystems 

across the MBR landscape; to learn and 

teach best management practices for the 

conservation of the MBR and beyond; 

and to guide, design and test wildlifefocused planning’’ (WCS 2008, page 3). 

These efforts were endorsed by the 

president of Guatemala through his 

office’s attendance at the Mesa 

Multisectorial roundtable discussion 

held in Guatemala in 2009. 

Many outstanding accomplishments 

have been achieved in Guatemala in 

terms of biodiversity conservation 

(IARNA URL IIA 2006, p. 22), and 

efforts to achieve desired levels of 

environmental management are 

ongoing. In August 2010, the president 

of Guatemala announced that he is 

deploying 250 soldiers to recover fully 

all the protected zones of El Peten in the 

Laguna del Tigre section of the MBR. 

This ‘‘Green Battalion’’ is being 

deployed specifically protect the Laguna 

del Tigre National Park and work jointly 

with the National Civil Police and the 

Attorney General’s Office to combat 

drug trafficking and the illegal harvest 

of natural resources and archaeological 

sites of that region of the MBR (Latin 

American Herald Tribune, December 6, 

2010). Additional help from WCS and 

USAID includes establishing over flights 

to monitor fires, locating illegal 

settlements and notifying the national 

and provincial government of illegal 

activities, as well as the national media. 

These efforts have resulted in additional 

personnel added to parks, removal of 

settlements, consistent patrols and 

cessation of illegal activities, and 

educating locals and concessionaires on 

best management practices for 

sustainable use of forest products. In 

addition, the CITES National Legislation 

Project (http://www.CITES.org) deemed 

both Mexico and Guatemala’s national 

legislation as Category 1, meeting all the 

requirements to implement CITES, with 

Belize in Category 3 (not meeting the 

requirements for implementing CITES), 

but having submitted a national 

legislation plan and draft of legislation 

that has not yet been adopted. 

Castan ̃ eda Moya (1998a, p. 521; 

1998b, p. 13) listed illegal hunting as a 

threat to Morelet’s crocodile in the 

Pete ́n region of Guatemala (CITES 

2010a), but did not provide a numerical 

estimate of the take. ARCAS, an animal 

welfare group in Guatemala, reported 

the rescue or recovery of 49 live 

individuals (about 8 per year), most 

likely from pet dealers or private 

individuals, during the period 2002– 

2007 (ARCAS 2002, p. 3; 2003, p. 2; 

2004, p. 2; 2005, p. 2; 2006, p. 3; 2007, 

p. 3). 

The Government of Guatemala 

acknowledged these issues when it 

opposed Mexico’s 2010 CITES proposal 

to transfer the Morelet’s crocodile from 

Appendix I to Appendix II throughout 

its range. Specifically, the Government 

of Guatemala opposed transferring 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Guatemala to 

Appendix II based on the lack of 

knowledge of the population and 

population trends in Guatemala, the 

potential threats to the species from 

deforestation and pollution in 

Guatemala, and the likelihood of illegal, 

cross-border trade taking place in 

Guatemala. Morelet’s crocodiles in 

Guatemala remain in CITES Appendix I 

(CITES 2010a, p. 2). As a result of the 

Government of Guatemala’s past 

inability to adequately enforce their 

legal framework, the Morelet’s crocodile 

in Guatemala may be still subject to 

some illegal hunting and some 

destruction of habitat due to previous 

human encroachment. This constitutes a 

difference in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms that is 

significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) 

of the Act. 

Conclusion on Discreteness 

We have determined, based on the 

best available data and information that 

the population of Morelet’s crocodiles 

in Guatemala is discrete due to the 

significant difference in the control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms between international 

boundaries. Therefore, we have 

determined that the Guatemala 

population of the Morelet’s crocodile 

meets the requirements of our DPS 

Policy for discreteness. We will next 

conduct an analysis of the Guatemala 

population of the Morelet’s crocodile 

under the significance element of the 

DPS Policy. 

Significance 

Having determined that the 

population of Morelet’s crocodiles in 

Guatemala is discrete under one or more 

of the discreteness conditions described 

in the DPS Policy, we must then 

determine whether the population in 

Guatemala is significant. We evaluate its 

biological and ecological significance 

based on ‘‘the available scientific 

evidence of the discrete population 

segment’s importance to the taxon to 

which it belongs’’ (61 FR 4725). We 

make this evaluation in light of 

congressional guidance that the 

Service’s authority to list DPSs be used 

‘‘sparingly.’’ Since precise circumstances 

are likely to vary considerably from case 

to case, the DPS Policy does not 

describe all the classes of information 

that might be used in determining the 

biological and ecological importance of 

a discrete population. However, the DPS 

Policy describes four possible classes of 

information that provide evidence of a 

population segment’s biological and 

ecological importance to the taxon to 

which it belongs. As specified in the 

DPS Policy (61 FR 4722), consideration 

of the population segment’s significance 

may include, but is not limited to the 

following: (1) Persistence of the 

population segment in an ecological 

setting that is unusual or unique for the 

taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon; 

(3) evidence that the population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere as an 

introduced population outside of its 

historic range; and (4) evidence that the 

discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics. A 

population segment needs to satisfy 

only one of these conditions to be 

considered significant. 

Persistence in a Unique Ecological 

Setting 

As stated in the DPS Policy, the 

Service believes that occurrence in an 

unusual ecological setting may be an 

indication that a population segment 

represents a significant resource 

warranting conservation under the Act 

(61 FR 4724). In considering whether 

the population occupies an ecological 

setting that is unusual or unique for the 

taxon, we evaluate whether the habitat 

includes unique features not used by the 

taxon elsewhere and whether the habitat 

shares many features common to the 

habitats of other populations. As stated 

above, the Morelet’s crocodile is a wideranging species that occurs primarily in 

freshwater environments such as lakes, 

swamps, and slow-moving rivers. This 

species of crocodile can temporarily 

inhabit intermittent freshwater bodies 

such as flooded savannahs and is 

occasionally observed in brackish 

coastal lagoons (Villegas 2006, p. 8). We 

do not have any evidence to indicate 

that the Guatemala population of the 

Morelet’s crocodile occurs in habitat 

that includes unique features not used 

by the taxon elsewhere in its range. 

Morelet’s crocodile habitat in the 

Laguna del Tigre National Park consists 

of flooded savannahs and marshes that 

are typical of the species habitat 

throughout its range. Therefore, we 

conclude that the discrete population of 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Guatemala is not 

‘‘significant’’ because of persistence in a 

unique or unusual ecological setting. 

Significant Gap in the Taxon’s Range 

As stated in the DPS Policy, the 

Service believes that evidence that loss 

of the discrete population segment 

would result in a significant gap in the 

range of a taxon, is potentially an 

indication that a population segment 

represents a significant resource 

warranting conservation under the Act 

(61 FR 4724). As the Ninth Circuit has 

stated, ‘‘[t]he plain language of the 

second significance factor does not limit 

how a gap could be important,’’ 

National Ass’n of Home Builders v. 

Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 846 (9th Cir. 

2003). Thus, we considered a variety of 

ways in which the loss of the Guatemala 

population of the Morelet’s crocodile 

might result in a significant gap in the 

range of species. Namely, we considered 

whether Guatemala contributed to the 

resiliency, redundancy, or 

representation of the taxon’s range. As 

stated previously in the Significant 

Portion of the Range analysis, the 

Service felt that due to the small size of 

the Guatemalan portion of the Morelet’s 

crocodile’s range and the small 

population size of the species in 

Guatemala, its overall contribution to 

the species was limited. While 

Guatemala has regulatory mechanisms 

in place to protect their national parks, 

it appears that until recently, the 

government was unable to enforce them 

adequately. Although Guatemala has 

conserved several areas of the Morelet’s 

crocodile’s range, past threats limited 

this population’s contribution to the 

species (IARNA URL IIA 2006, pp. 88– 

92). Morelet’s crocodile habitat consists 

of flooded savannahs and marshes that 

are typical of the species habitat 

throughout its range, but are not 

ecologically unusual, unique, or 

otherwise significant to the species as a 

whole in any way. In addition, we 

found no information indicating that the 

Guatemala population is genetically 

different from the remainder of the 

range. 

Conclusion of Significant Gap in the 

Taxon’s Range 

The Morelet’s crocodile in Guatemala 

does not significantly contribute to the 

resiliency, redundancy or the 

representation of the species or its 

range, including but not limited to, the 

size of the range, habitat quality, habitat 

variability, or genetic uniqueness. The 

majority of the species range occurs in 

Mexico and Belize, which contain the 

majority of all wild Morelet’s crocodiles 

(87 percent) and the majority of the 

potentially suitable habitat throughout 

the species’ range (81 percent). Should 

a discrete population segment of 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Guatemala 

decrease for any reason (which we have 

concluded is unlikely), then it is likely 

that Morelet’s crocodiles in Mexico and 

Belize would expand their range and recolonize any potential habitat in 

Guatemala. Thus, we feel the loss of a 

discrete population segment in 

Guatemala would not create a 

significant gap in the range of the 

species, nor does it represent a 

significant resource warranting 

conservation under the Act. 

Natural Occurrence of a Taxon 

Abundant Elsewhere as an Introduced 

Population 

As stated in the DPS Policy, the 

Service believes that evidence that the 

population segment represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside of its 

historic range may be an indication that 

a population segment represents a 

significant resource warranting 

conservation under the Act (61 FR 

4724). This element does not apply to 

the Morelet’s crocodile in Guatemala. 

The Guatemala population of the 

Morelet’s crocodile does not represent 

the only surviving natural occurrence of 

the Morelet’s crocodile throughout the 

range of the taxon. After the protections 

of the Act and CITES were put in place 

in the 1970s, populations of Morelet’s 

crocodiles increased and expanded their 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23681 

range naturally over time to the point 

that they have recovered and are now 

found in all areas of their historic range. 

Marked Differences in Genetic 

Characteristics 

As stated in the DPS Policy, the 

Service believes that evidence that a 

discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics may 

be an indication that a population 

segment represents a significant 

resource warranting conservation under 

the Act (61 FR 4724). 

Genetic diversity and integrity is a 

relatively complicated subject with 

respect to the Morelet’s crocodile, and 

our knowledge across the three range 

countries is uneven. The genetic data 

we do have are with respect to 

hybridization between Morelet’s 

crocodiles and American crocodiles. 

Thus, we have no information 

indicating that the Guatemala 

population is markedly different from 

the remainder of the range. 

Conclusion on Significance 

First, we do not have any data or 

information to indicate that the 

Guatemala population of the Morelet’s 

crocodile occurs in habitat that includes 

unique features not used by the taxon 

elsewhere in its range. Morelet’s 

crocodile habitat in the Laguna del Tigre 

National Park consists of flooded 

savannahs and marshes that are typical 

of the species habitat throughout its 

range. Second we conclude that loss of 

Morelet’s crocodiles in 13 percent of 

their range would not constitute a 

significant gap in the range of the 

species due to the loss of a population 

that is ecologically unusual, unique, or 

otherwise significant to the species as a 

whole in any way (for example, in terms 

of species or habitat) or that contributes 

substantially to the representation, 

resiliency, or redundancy of the species. 

Third, the Guatemala population of the 

Morelet’s crocodile does not represent 

the only surviving natural occurrence of 

the Morelet’s crocodile throughout the 

range of the taxon. Finally, the 

Guatemala population of the Morelet’s 

crocodile does not have any genetic 

characteristics that are markedly 

different from Morelet’s crocodiles 

elsewhere in the range of the taxon. 

Therefore, based on the information 

available to the Service, we conclude 

that the discrete population of Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Guatemala does not meet 

the requirements under our DPS Policy 

for significance. 

Conclusion of DPS Analysis 

Based on the best available data and 

information, we conclude that the 

Guatemala population of the Morelet’s 

crocodile meets the requirements of our 

DPS Policy for discreteness, but does 

not meet the requirements of our DPS 

policy for significance in relation to the 

remainder of the taxon (i.e., Morelet’s 

crocodiles in Mexico and Belize). The 

population of Morelet’s crocodiles in 

Guatemala is discrete due to the 

significant difference in the control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms between international 

boundaries. This difference is evidenced 

by the fact that Morelet’s crocodiles in 

Guatemala remain listed under 

Appendix I of CITES, while those in 

Mexico and Belize were downgraded to 

Appendix II. The discrete population of 

Morelet’s crocodiles in Guatemala does 

not meet the requirements of our DPS 

policy for significance because it: (1) 

Does not occur in habitat that includes 

unique features not used by the taxon 

elsewhere in its range; (2) would not 

constitute a significant gap in the range 

of the species due to the loss of a 

population that contributes 

substantially to the representation, 

resiliency, or redundancy of the species; 

(3) does not represent the only surviving 

natural occurrence of the Morelet’s 

crocodile throughout the range of the 

taxon; and (4) does not have any genetic 

characteristics that are markedly 

different from Morelet’s crocodiles 

elsewhere in the range of the taxon. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

population of the Morelet’s crocodile in 

Guatemala is not a DPS pursuant to our 

DPS Policy, and, therefore, is not a 

listable entity under section 3(15) of the 

Act. 

Effects of This Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule, if made final, 

would revise our regulations at 50 CFR 

17.11(h) by removing the Morelet’s 

crocodile throughout its range from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. Our regulations do 

not authorize designating critical habitat 

in areas outside of the United States. 

Specifically, our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(h) specify that critical habitat 

shall not be designated within foreign 

countries or in other areas outside of 

U.S. jurisdiction. Because no critical 

habitat was ever designated for this 

species, this rule would not affect 50 

CFR 17.95. 

The prohibitions and conservation 

measures provided by the Act, 

particularly through section 9, would no 

longer apply. This rulemaking, however, 

does not affect the protection given to 

the Morelet’s crocodile under CITES. 

Delisting under the Act would allow 

import, re-export, and commercial 

activity in Morelet’s crocodiles and their 

parts and products originating from any 

country, including the three range 

countries, provided that the 

requirements of CITES are met. 

Post-delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of Interior, through the 

Service, to implement a system in 

cooperation with the States to monitor 

for not less than 5 years the status of all 

species that are removed from the lists 

of endangered and threatened wildlife 

and plants (50 CFR 17.11, 17.12) due to 

recovery. This monitoring requirement 

is to ensure prevention of significant 

risk to the well-being of recovered 

species. 

Species monitoring is also called for 

under CITES. CITES Resolution Conf. 

9.24 (Rev. CoP 15), provides criteria for 

including species under CITES 

Appendices I and II. Through the 

resolution, the parties have resolved 

that the status of species included in 

Appendices I and II should be regularly 

reviewed by the range countries and 

proponents, in collaboration with the 

CITES Animals Committee or Plants 

Committee, in order to monitor the 

effectiveness of CITES protections, 

subject to the availability of funds 

(CITES 2007a, p. 3). 

At the international level, perhaps the 

most important ongoing conservation 

effort for the Morelet’s crocodile is the 

agreement by the three range countries 

to develop and implement the BelizeGuatemala-Mexico Tri-national Strategy 

for the Conservation and Sustainable 

Management of Morelet’s Crocodile 

(Crocodylus moreletii) (Estrategia Trinacional Belice-Guatemala-Me ́xico para 

la Conservacio ́n y el Manejo Sostenible 

del Cocodrilo de Morelet (Crocodylus 

moreletii) (Tri-national Strategy) 

(Sa ́nchez 2006). 

This initiative began in June 2001 at 

Laguna del Tigre National Park, Pete ́n, 

Guatemala, when representatives of the 

three countries met to discuss matters of 

mutual interest. A follow up meeting 

attended by about 25 species experts 

and government officials from all three 

range countries took place in April 2006 

(Mexico City, Mexico). Two working 

groups were formed: (1) Technical and 

Scientific Matters; and (2) 

Administration, Management, and Uses. 

Group members discussed technical 

issues for two days, and generated a 

series of products, commitments, and 

agreements. The first group produced or 

agreed to compile a series of documents, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

23682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

including distribution maps, survey 

techniques, scientific literature, and 

databases (e.g., geographic information 

system). The second group agreed to 

work toward a regional assessment of 

the conservation status of the Morelet’s 

crocodile, as well as development and 

implementation of regional actions to 

improve the conservation status of the 

species (institutional capacity building, 

project development and 

implementation, and development of a 

regional captive-breeding program). The 

final product of the workshop was the 

development of ‘‘Estrategia Regional 

para el Manejo y la Conservacio ́n del 

Cocodrilo de Morelet (Crocodylus 

moreletii) (Regional Strategy for the 

Management and Conservation of the 

Morelet’s Crocodile) (Regional Strategy), 

found on pp. 43–53 of the Tri-national 

Strategy document (Sanchez 2006). This 

Regional Strategy outlines a series of 

objectives, products, and working 

protocols to accomplish the goals of the 

Tri-national Strategy. As these tasks are 

completed, they will significantly 

enhance the conservation status of the 

Morelet’s crocodile. 

According to Sa ́nchez Herrera and 

A ́ lvarez-Romero (2006), as result of this 

initiative, the three range countries have 

agreed to implement the Regional 

Strategy, which also includes 

monitoring the species. The three range 

countries plan to implement the 

Regional Strategy by: 

(1) Conducting population surveys in 

defined priority areas using systematic 

and coordinated monitoring, with 

standardized fieldwork methods and 

techniques. 

(2) Developing a shared biological and 

geographical information system. 

(3) Identifying priority areas and 

routes for conservation and 

surveillance, along with those for future 

potential for ranching. 

(4) Supporting and developing 

educational programs and outreach 

materials. 

(5) Promoting personnel training and 

experience exchange, including field 

techniques and surveillance. 

(6) Promoting species-friendly 

production projects such as close-cycle 

farms (and eventually future ranching), 

along with the development of a legal 

regional market and a certification 

strategy for Morelet’s crocodile 

products. 

(7) Raising funds in support of the 

activities and tasks outlined in the 

Strategy (Sa ́nchez Herrera and A ́ lvarezRomero 2006, p. 263). 

The Government of Mexico is making 

efforts to design and implement a 

countrywide monitoring program for the 

populations and habitat of the Morelet’s 

crocodile, including the possibility of 

involving Belize and Guatemala. The 

aim is to build on the experiences and 

results of the COPAN Project and the 

suggestions made at the 23rd meeting of 

the CITES Animals Committee (Geneva, 

April 2008, see the Animals Committee 

summary record labeled as document 

AC23) to obtain better information about 

the status and trends of relevant 

populations of the species and their 

habitat. The program will be developed 

in the framework of the Tri-national 

Strategy (CITES 2010a, p. 9). The 

Government of Mexico has established 

contacts with the Governments of Belize 

and Guatemala as part of the TriNational Strategy (CITES 2008, p. 32). 

Stage 1 of the project is currently 

under way. It aims to develop a 

preliminary design of the program, 

considering relevant areas in the range 

of the species. Ideally, areas could be 

selected in the three countries, based on 

the COPAN Project and subsequent 

studies. The design will be reviewed 

and assessed in a 2010 workshop 

involving species experts and 

authorities, who will agree upon on the 

most appropriate methods and define 

time intervals, routes/localities and 

variables to take into account for 

crocodiles and their habitat. Manuals 

will be developed to ensure the 

effectiveness of fieldwork and training 

of staff. This stage will also include the 

design of a database where information 

will be organized and centralized 

(CITES 2010a, p. 9). 

To date, the preliminary design 

proposes a monitoring effort with 

biannual sampling throughout the range 

of the species, with observations made 

in at least three routes per defined 

region (e.g. 12 regions in Mexico) using 

nighttime counts. In addition, one of the 

three routes per region will be selected 

for capture-mark-recapture of 

individuals and standard data/sample 

collection, as well as nest location and 

monitoring. Information obtained will 

make it possible to estimate relative 

abundance indices to detect variations 

in the population in time, determine the 

sex and age ratio and the general status 

and activity of individuals, and obtain 

data on the reproductive effort and 

success of the species, and on habitat 

critical for breeding (CITES 2010a, pp. 

9–10). 

Stage 2 will be implemented once the 

monitoring program has been published. 

It will consist of implementing the 

actions decided, including setting up 

and training the field teams, signing the 

relevant cooperation agreements, 

carrying out field work, and developing 

the database. Information stored in the 

database will be periodically analyzed 

to produce estimates of the population 

and its trends in the short, medium, and 

long term (CITES 2010a, pp. 9–10) 

(CITES 2010a, p. 10). We do not have 

any information on implementation 

progress for the Tri-National Strategy, 

and are seeking this information as part 

of this proposed rule. 

In Belize, Dr. Frank Mazzotti 

(University of Florida) is collaborating 

with the Belize Forestry Department to 

develop a national crocodile 

management program (The Croc Docs 

2009, pp. 1–8). This project seeks to 

develop, in collaboration with the 

Lamanai Field Research Center, a 

monitoring program for these species. 

Along with the monitoring program, the 

project will develop a training program 

for government and nongovernment 

personnel in Belize so that the 

monitoring program can be maintained. 

This long-term program has great 

potential to provide ongoing 

conservation benefits to the Morelet’s 

crocodile in Belize. We do not have any 

information on implementation progress 

for this monitoring program in Belize, 

and are seeking this information as part 

of this proposed rule. 

The Act requires the Service to 

monitor the status of the species in 

cooperation with the States. The Act 

defines the term ‘‘State’’ as ‘‘any of the 

several States, the District of Columbia, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, 

Guam, and the Trust Territory of the 

Pacific Islands.’’ For species found 

entirely outside of the United States and 

therefore outside the areas defined as a 

‘‘State’’ under the Act, we must 

cooperate with the species’ range 

countries to meet the post-delisting 

monitoring requirements of the Act to 

ensure that the species will maintain its 

recovered status throughout its range 

after the protections of Act are removed. 

As the species experts, the range 

countries are best qualified to develop 

and implement a range-wide postdelisting monitoring plan for their 

species. If this proposed rule is finalized 

and the Morelet’s crocodile is delisted 

under the Act, we will work with the 

range countries to monitor the status of 

the species throughout its range via 

their implementation of the existing 

monitoring requirements under CITES, 

the Tri-national Strategy, the Belizean 

monitoring program discussed above, 

and any additional monitoring plans 

that may be developed in the future. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint peer 

review policy with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, ‘‘Notice of Interagency 

Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 23683 

Endangered Species Act Activities,’’ that 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004, 

we will seek the expert opinions of at 

least three appropriate independent 

specialists regarding the science in this 

proposed rule. The purpose of peer 

review is to ensure that listing, 

reclassification, and delisting decisions 

are based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

send copies of this proposed rule to the 

peer reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions in this proposed delisting 

of the Morelet’s crocodile. We will 

summarize the opinions of these 

reviewers in the final decision 

document, and we will consider their 

input and any additional information 

we received as part of our process of 

making a final decision on this 

proposal. Such communication may 

lead to a final decision that differs from 

this proposal. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that an 

environmental assessments or an 

environmental impact statement, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. A notice outlining our 

reasons for this determination was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of the references used 

to develop this proposed rule is 

available upon request from the 

Endangered Species Program in our 

Headquarters office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby propose to 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Public Law 

99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Crocodile, Morelet’s’’ under 

‘‘REPTILES’’ from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

Dated: April 11, 2011. 

Daniel M. Ashe, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9836 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2